|
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 13 2015 00:29 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 22:18 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 22:06 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote:
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW
Wol to hots to lotv
And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is.
Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction) This graph is sarcastic  Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise. And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger. I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.) I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then? The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse. Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [ Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG). It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean. It does.  Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation. sorry for late reply you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game? I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth.
It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
|
On April 13 2015 00:49 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 00:29 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 22:18 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 22:06 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote:
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW
Wol to hots to lotv
And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is.
Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction) This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise. And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger. I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.) I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then? The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse. Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [ Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG). It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean. It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation. sorry for late reply you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game? I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me. Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth. It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
what would be your proposal instead?
I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
Sc2 protoss emphasis more on the higher tech units, so that the robo and stargate units actually feel more powerful in strong contrast.
If they added a strong move and shoot unit, stalkers will get phrased out into some other role and frankly I don't think they should do that when stalker usage is visibly better for top protoss than the rest.
They already have the powerful move and shoot units in robo and stargate tech, gateway units all have distinctive features and functions.
The new unit should also be so (though I personally don't like the unit design)
|
In a game where you control one unit, of course abilities are cool and needed (you obviously don't only shine by good abilities control ; teamwork, coordination, anticipation and reflexes are other qualities required). It's not the case in SC2 where you play on many other levels (economy, compositions, positioning...) and I'm quite adamant the inflation of abilities we're seeing in LotV (especially for P) will end up being harmful for the game.
|
On April 13 2015 01:11 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 00:49 TheDwf wrote:On April 13 2015 00:29 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 22:18 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 22:06 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote:
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW
Wol to hots to lotv
And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is.
Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction) This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise. And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger. I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.) I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then? The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse. Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [ Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG). It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean. It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation. sorry for late reply you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game? I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me. Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth. It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape. I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
Funnily enough, it was presented as a "core gateway unit" on April March, sorry, 18th : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/480857-lotv-closed-beta-announced-to-start-on-march-31
And on April 1st, it had been transformed into a "slow-moving harassment unit" : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/481782-lotv-beta-is-live-patch-10-notes
|
On April 12 2015 23:59 kelbs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 13:49 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 11:54 StalkerFang wrote:On April 12 2015 11:13 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote:On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote:
Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys? It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case. For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from. This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this. So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style. This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy. TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time. I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal. No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard. I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it. No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it. On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote:
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite
"Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words
"Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people. Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm. That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts. I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
Just one example : Heidegger. Incredibly difficult to read, possibly unnecessarily, but the effect is profound and everlasting, where the community would be immeasurably impoverished without this particular language as its eventual interpretations enriched our understanding more than hundreds of clearer analyses.
|
On April 13 2015 00:24 Hider wrote:
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast).
(2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Re-read section 3, I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines...
The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
|
On April 13 2015 01:14 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 23:59 kelbs wrote:On April 12 2015 13:49 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 11:54 StalkerFang wrote:On April 12 2015 11:13 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote:On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote:
Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys? It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case. For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from. This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this. So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style. This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy. TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time. I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal. No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard. I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it. No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it. On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote:
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite
"Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words
"Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people. Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm. That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts. I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless. Just one example : Heidegger. Incredibly difficult to read, possibly unnecessarily, but the effect is profound and everlasting, where the community would be immeasurably impoverished without this particular language as its eventual interpretations enriched our understanding more than hundreds of clearer analyses.
I sure hope I don't write like Heidegger! I'm unsure you're making me a favor with the comparison, haha
|
On April 13 2015 01:14 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:11 ETisME wrote:On April 13 2015 00:49 TheDwf wrote:On April 13 2015 00:29 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 22:18 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 22:06 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote:
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW
Wol to hots to lotv
And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is.
Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction) This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise. And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger. I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.) I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then? The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse. Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [ Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG). It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean. It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation. sorry for late reply you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game? I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me. Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth. It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape. I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design. Funnily enough, it was presented as a "core gateway unit" on April March, sorry, 18th : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/480857-lotv-closed-beta-announced-to-start-on-march-31And on April 1st, it had been transformed into a "slow-moving harassment unit" : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/481782-lotv-beta-is-live-patch-10-notes
I think when they said core, it meant it has a role in a direct engagement like a stalker and not really a dragoon like unit (afterall the first time we know of this unit rough design was from the tweets and it always intended to have mobility based movement ability, meaning not a solid move and shoot unit)
|
On April 13 2015 00:17 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it. To me it seemed as he was talking about speed in general or the lack of immobility of Siege Tanks (everything has to be mobile), which seems to be different from what your talking about with the Roach.
I think he is partly talking about everything having to be fast to stay relevant in a game of hyper-development which then is wrong for units such as siege tanks and implies that the solution is to just cut out the hyper-development.
And then of course that even if you make the game faster, you cannot play faster. You could theoretically tank drop and macro, but it's getting too fast for the players, so you have to cut away from good play even more. Which so far has always led to players cutting out the "cutsie" play, because the macro play is much more important. This is where I think another connection with movement:production ratio comes in. Why is macro play more important? Exactly, because that ratio is very strongly in favor of the production part of play and you don't deal with heavy medivac play through multitasking, you deal with it by eventually just having overwhelming amounts of mutas and killing the fucking thing.
It's a problem that comes from two sides.
1) the unit relations are not as good as they should be, so it is sometimes just not possible to deal with certain enemy tools directly, even if you know they are coming. Hence, you are encouraged to not interact with threats.
2) directly dealing with the enemy is more often than not interrupting your economical build up by so much, while the units you build to deal with the menance don't really add any value right now. As long as you have bases to saturate and production to build up, economical and infrastructural investments lead to exponential growth. The units you build early have to concur with that and usually fall short in terms of value creation. The most simple way to stop this problem is by making the build up process "bumpier", leading back to unit interactions and giving them time to work their magic.
Maybe I'm deadwrong and I'm overinterpreting what he is writing, or interpreting it wrongly or whatever. He is not giving that many details* as you say, but he is giving enough to make valuable points and that is enough for me to agree with him or at least to get me thinking.
*And I do think that it is intentional. Discussing why regenerating mutalisks aren't good for the game is not the point. The point is that they are and other things are too and painting the overall picture, without writing another 50pages of going into details for everything he touches.
I said I found early game and early midgame less interesting. a typical game first gets interesting once your past 3+ bases (and I think you said somewhere along those lines as well previiously).
I have said previously that the game is badly balanced which leads to the necessity of having many bases before anything real can happen. In particular matchups with zerg are badly balanced, because 1base zerg doesn't provide enough production to keep up with a 1 basing protoss or terran, hence zerg needs another hatchery (asap) that will logically be placed at the natural expansion spot. Thereby forcing the opposing players to expand fast as well because 1:2 (potential) economy ratio isn't playable. And even in that situation zerg has trouble playing an even game, only when the game comes to a spot where zerg can have at least 3 hatcheries the game becomes playable.
This is why the early game in both TvZ and PvZ are 6-10mins of macro grinding and this cannot change unless they either changed the production or gave zerg extremely larva and cost-efficient early game units that you can build while droning. I guess the ravager is a step into that direction. However, since such a unit produced of larva will most likely break the balance one way or another, the solution will eventually be that the unit gets nerfed into the ground or delayed until after lair, going the way of the WoL-beta roach of "early game zerg cannot be efficient because mass larva". And then it's back to 3bases mass drones 6mins passiveness, instead of macro aggressive play of 1-2bases with expansions behind.
Show nested quote +Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it. I think the lack of story part might be a reason why I never enjoyed multipler FPS while always prerefed RTSs. However, it can definitely be maintained with removal of the early stages. But it just needs to start at a different point in time and continue further on.
As a player I have always enjoyed the RTS games that started with little and then developed to much. This might be me just talking about what I have learned to love, but even as a little child putting WC2 maps against the AI on "start with 1worker" instead of using the option of starting with a town hall just felt right. Even though it is always the same tasks you do, it still gives me the feeling of "this is what I do". I make my hatchery on 16 and my pool on 15, instead of 15/15, because then my 16th worker mines longer. Of course it's nothing spectacular to watch or play, but I don't even see the reason why it needs to be taken away, given how little time you actually spend on this.
Show nested quote +
Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
I think that's taking the discussion somewhere else. Obvously interactions must be rebalanced to take this into account, but I think that's more of a sideissue. Whether productionspeed is too fast relative to movementspeed is a different subject I myself haven't really thought of before.
Of course it works with a rebalancing towards faster as well. But personally I'm not a huge fan of abusing the reaction time of players to create action, which is why personally I'd prefer the approach of slowing down the development to the pace of the units, rather than the other way around. Speaking theoretically, if they found a way to play with the map revealed (but not the parts where your opponents bases are) I'd be a much happier player. I prefer action that is created despite knowledge, hence, if we rebalance make it so that I can know about my opponents movements, but still lose to it.
|
|
|
On April 13 2015 03:55 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts. Still reading. AAA+++
Admittedly I think a lot of us latched onto different parts of FRB and focused on rewarding expanding more. Well, I still think changing the income curve and all that is great, but I wasn't really convinced about just making the game slower before. At this point I'm fairly convinced, though.
This was a pretty inspiring post. I suddenly feel more interested in RTS games than I have in years.
|
This was totally worth the read. It was hard to find anything i could disagree with. Post of the year for me
And only now i realise how much I've changed opinions since I read an article critical of sc2(-design) for the first time. Posts like these make me learn.
|
Really well written, it just took me 2 days to read it all. Thanks for this ! Simply amazing post and thread. One of those threads where you read every response lol. AMAZING WORK!!!
|
On April 13 2015 01:18 varsovie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 00:24 Hider wrote:
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast).
(2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Re-read section 3, I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines... Show nested quote +The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
Re-read what I wrote on page 2 I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines...
The argument that theoretical skill ceiling skill being higher than practical is irrelevant here. Why?
Because the value of each action is not the same. The value of the 10 first actions during an engagement is higher than the value of the next 10 actions.
Example 1
50 Marines vs 40 Banelings.
No micro --> All Marines die
With 3 actions --> You divide the Marine group into 2 groups --> 5 Mairnes survive.
With 3 more action (6 total) --> You Divide Marines into 3 groups --> 8 Marines survive
Since the first 3 actions make you survive 5 extra Marines and the next 3 actions only let 3 extra Marines survive --> The value of each additional action declines.
Example 2
- We have speed value of X in the game.
- Best player in the world can perform 100 actions during an engagement.
- Second best can perform 90 actions.
Let's say we increase the speed --> Best player can perform 80 actions and second best = 70.
If the difference in the value between 70 and 80 actions > the differnce between 90 and 100 action --> Skill cap has been increased with faster speed --> Prooving your point invalid.
The point here is that as the speed is increased (and players are physically able to perform the tasks), the difference between the very best and the secondbest increases as players cannot perform all of the important tasks. When speed is very low the only difference between the very best and the secondbest are some of the more irrelevant actions, which results in a lower skillcap.
You could theoretically tank drop and macro, but it's getting too fast for the players, so you have to cut away from good play even more.
Why is this a bad thing? The BW skillcap was all about noone being able to do everything they wanted to. Personally that is the feeling I am looking for when I play Sc2. I want a game that is focussed on great micro interactions with an infinitive skillcap. In Sc2 it is best illustrated with bio play where there is always room to improve your play. Wouldn't you rather wanna watch a game where the the best player in the world is rewarded for having significant better micro than the 100th best?
It definitely surprised me if you are of the opinion that pro players should be able to utilize all of the micro opportunites in the game. I for one enjoy if players (as LOTV is released) can only take advantage of tank pick-ups to 10-15% of its fullest potential. (Note: Just using the tank example as a high skill cap micro trick, not as a design-choice that is perfect).
|
On April 13 2015 01:11 ETisME wrote:
what would be your proposal instead?
I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
Sc2 protoss emphasis more on the higher tech units, so that the robo and stargate units actually feel more powerful in strong contrast.
If they added a strong move and shoot unit, stalkers will get phrased out into some other role and frankly I don't think they should do that when stalker usage is visibly better for top protoss than the rest.
They already have the powerful move and shoot units in robo and stargate tech, gateway units all have distinctive features and functions.
The new unit should also be so (though I personally don't like the unit design)
Yeah, they precisely need to properly adjust that gate:support “power ratio”.
The original sin of SC2 Protoss lies in the Warpgate-Stalker-Sentry-Immortal system. Most of the rest is of course terrible but easily fixed. To sum it up, from my perspective:
(1) Protoss has no right to Core tech Warpgate.
(2) Stalkers cannot be the solution because of Warpgate and Blink.
(3) Sentries should not be a costly requirement.
(4) Immortals serve no positive purpose.
Personally, I think they should remove the Immortal from the Robotics and move it to the Gateway as a 2 supply unit acting as the Dragoon (so the BW Dragoon is split into Stalker + Immortal). Stalkers would be the more mobile element (and could be slightly specialized in that way) while Immortal-Dragoons would be the sturdier basic fighter Protoss needs (Blink categorically forbids such an increase in the stats of the Stalker). I don't see another way.
The Immortal in the robo hurts Protoss far more than the Colossus, which is a brainless and terrible unit but fully does its job. Immortals, however, overkill Armored (and mech) like crazy and are powerless against light infantry. As for Sentries, hmm… their early game necessity has to be decreased, if not nuked. Tweaking costs and stats (for instance 75 energy Forcefield) or turning them into a Nexus upgrade (like the Orbital and PFs are for CCs), I don't know. They just can't stay the way they are, especially with a SC2 Dragoon. Besides, Ravagers have no business being an anti-Forcefield Roachydra; there's something better to do with the interesting concept of salvaging the Roach into something more supply-efficient. The MSC is a pure creature of the flawed WISS system and all its spells can go; like the Reaper, we can probably find it a niche harassment/scouting use (possibly with Hallucination), with the Mothership still available in lategame; perhaps a weaker variant of Recall to encourage further mobility against Zerg in midgame, but Protoss should be able to be on the map without such tools.
Thing is, a SC2 Dragoon is incompatible with Warpgate at Core + 120-160s. Warpgate simply needs to be moved higher in the tree tech, until at least 9-10 minutes (old SC2 minutes) or maybe even later. This problem is a huge headache as the Blizzsters want Protoss to perform Warpgate timings, which is why they refuse to apply simple tweaks such as warping only in a given area around the Nexus, etc. Yet they could for instance use this Dark Pylon thing they abandoned in WoL alpha, perhaps with a special ability, to create a proper siege dynamic through Warpgate in midgame.
Warpgate stomps Protoss. Just like Zergs can't have units with Protoss stats because of larva inject, or Terran can't have Zerg's infrastructure with their units, Protoss can't have the current Warpgate and a solid race. The concept of a Swiss knife hyper-development mechanic with built-in aggressive and defensive features is just way too powerful within the race and overshadows by force a critical branch of the tech tree. This is really a waste, as the Warpgate concept is very Protoss indeed, but its dogmatic implementation has been absolutely catastrophic.
They're nerfing the defensive aspect (and the aggressive one when warp-ins are exposed), but Warpgate as the standard production mechanic early in the game is the main problem. Of course, the speed of development of the other races would have to be adjusted since the threat of Warpgate timings acts as a deterrent for what people call “greed”; hyper-mobility would have to be toned down as well (but the Medivac boost is a creature of Warpgate too); mech should lose its anti-Zealot hardcounter; etc. There would be a massive cascade of effects, but all of them would be positive in the end.
One thing is sure, Protoss doesn't need any extra unit until the plethora of flawed tools at their disposal has been amended into a playable WoL basis. After that, one may contemplate adding 1 unit (I don't think there is room for 2).
|
On April 13 2015 05:54 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 03:55 Barrin wrote:Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts. Still reading. AAA+++ Admittedly I think a lot of us latched onto different parts of FRB and focused on rewarding expanding more. Well, I still think changing the income curve and all that is great, but I wasn't really convinced about just making the game slower before. At this point I'm fairly convinced, though. This was a pretty inspiring post. I suddenly feel more interested in RTS games than I have in years.
The RTS genre is young... Very young. I just know inside me that the RTS genre has huge potential.. I think that RTS games could be the best games e-sport wise but for that to happen, the company behind that particular game needs to understand the genre... No, not really the genre but what is good and what is bad gameplay.
All this buzz about dota games is getting ridicilous. No, they do not outshine the RTS genre, they do however, outshine the current RTS games.
But no way in hell can a moba/dota(i dont know whats it called) compete with a "REAL" rts game.
That to be said, there are probably potential in every genre out there since gaming is actually very young all together.
Blizzard had it before but they dont anymore. I think the current generation has the best gameplay knowledge so its up to us/them to make a company and start developing.
|
On April 13 2015 03:55 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts. Still reading. AAA+++
Entirely out of curiosity. Why does the car go faster?
There are two big problems with this whole idea, and they are both apparent in the analogies. So in a sense, it's not such a bad thing that those analogies are here.
1), the idea that skill is expressed better in slowness is entirely wrong. Let's say that instead of playing 120 amateurs with 3 seconds to play, your chess prodigy is now playing 20 amateurs with 30 seconds to play. The contraction of time has been slowed down. The chess prodigy wins all of the 20 games every time. Is skill better expressed?
No, because basically anyone over 2200 ELO could do that. You have removed the difficulty of what he was doing, and in essence, you have turned it into something less amazing. In doing so, you have decreased the skill cap required to do what the GM would be doing in the hypothetical situation.
What's amazing is you are presenting a situation in which even a world champion could lose a game... and your conclusion is that the skill cap is nullified? That's absurd. If even a GM could lose, obviously the task that is asked of him is harder to accomplish.
2), the LotV car doesn't go faster. There is no "contraction of time". There is a removal of time. The remaining time advances at the same speed, so that's not actually an excuse to make more mistakes.
|
I've tried to write a (still quite long) TL;DR with only the content of the post.
edit: will clean this up tomorrow, but I'm pretty tired right now.
1.
There are more starting workers in the LotV.
Strategy involves thought, which requires time.
LotV seems like it is much faster paced than HotS.
Taking the last two together means less room for strategy in LotV.
2.
The early game is almost completely removed in LotV (or they are heading that way)
Speculation on what might happen due to changes to the game:
- May have prolonged passivity
- May have more tech switching
etc.
Harassment is not the answer to passivity because I have decided that harassment can not be balanced to be effective without being the entire game.
3.
Limits on human ability mean mistakes happen.
I'm worried that the increase in game speed will blur lines between skill levels.
I don't like SC2.
In SC2 the game speed already blurs the lines between skill levels
This happens because there is too little time to do everything that can be done.
Chess analogy (GM vs 120 amateurs)
Car analogy (driving at faster and faster speeds)
Splitting large numbers of marines vs banelings perfectly is impossible (for a human) and therefore is luck, not skill, based
4.
I don't like blizzards approach to SC2.
I don't like modernity.
SC2 shouldn't have:
-Hard counters
-Randomness
Should have:
-Skill in interaction (counter example being forcefield)
These things (both present and lacking) lead to a less watchable game.
SC2 is frustrating because it removed far too much control for the player.
5.
12 worker start is purely for spectators.
I hate modernity.
Good for player usually good for spectator, converse not always true.
Pleasure of watching comes from control.
Example of football - made to be played ended up good for spectators. Followed by some purposefuly ridiculous ideas for how to make football more enjoyable.
6.
Ladder anxiety is (largely) due to the aforementioned lack of control.
I hate politics and marketing
The game should be designed for players not spectators
7.
There is really nothing in this section that I can see.
8.
Removing the "mechanical barriers" of BW (limited unit selection, bad patching etc.) makes designing a balanced game harder.
The "macro mechanics" (larvae inject, mule and chronoboost) are bad as (see 3.)
9.
The exciting moments of SC2 all recreate effective limited unit selection - blink micro and splits(of various kinds)
This is ruined by the colossus - which dumbly kills things with little input.
AoE unit which isn't dumb - siege tank
10.
Making SC2 better is easy.
The main flaws include:
-units too good all around,
-things cost too much,
-units doing things themselves
--phoenix moving shot
--Cyclones once locked on
--Charge
--Zergling (partial) surrounds
-units too specialized
11.
Example of trying to force use of hard counters (proposed banshee change)
12.
Example with mutas in PvZ.
Example of ultras
Problem of SC2 is that it is designed "solved"
13.
Example of game moving swiftly killing a style of play - submits that marine/tank is not viable because, since queen buff in 2012, the economies are so accelerated that tanks can't keep up
14.
Recall, proposed warp prism pick-up range, and some other things are bad because they reduce risk of actions to (near) zero.
15.
Build times should be increased.
16.
All aggression is not good, blizzard doesn't understand the good parts of defensiveness
17.
Asymmetry isn't handled well enough.
18.
Satire of using the excuse of "casuals"
19.
We shouldn't argue about any specifics because SC2 is awful, we should be lobbying for a playable RTS.
20/21.
Conclusions
|
Here's a crazy idea; why doesn't everyone who wants sc2 to be BW2 go play the fucking custom map scbw or starbow and leave sc2 to the people who actually like it. You want to know the real enemy to sc2? It's whining. "Fuck you Blizzard toss op. Fuck you blizzard deathballs wah. Fuck you blizzard too many abilities. Fuck you blizzard game too ez, but too hard also. etc. etc.". One of the reasons someone like stephano has so much success is because he finds solutions to what other people whine about.
|
On April 13 2015 06:52 Hider wrote:
Why is this a bad thing? The BW skillcap was all about noone being able to do everything they wanted to. Personally that is the feeling I am looking for when I play Sc2. I want a game that is focussed on great micro interactions with an infinitive skillcap. In Sc2 it is best illustrated with bio play where there is always room to improve your play. Wouldn't you rather wanna watch a game where the the best player in the world is rewarded for having significant better micro than the 100th best?
It definitely surprised me if you are of the opinion that pro players should be able to utilize all of the micro opportunites in the game. I for one enjoy if players (as LOTV is released) can only take advantage of tank pick-ups to 10-15% of its fullest potential. (Note: Just using the tank example as a high skill cap micro trick, not as a design-choice that is perfect).
Not being able to do everything you want to do is great. But only being able to practically do maybe one thing on an extremely unforgiving timer before tech develops past the point where being aggressive is useful really sucks. It discourages people from being aggression because you simply can't do enough to make it worth it. Read my post from page one for my thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
