|
United States4883 Posts
On July 19 2015 16:29 BrokenSegment wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:22 Uvantak wrote:
Oh for sure Whitewing, I'll be absolutely looking forward to it.
Regarding the show itself as feedback, I realized that it would very nice if you guys used more graphics and drawings to express your ideas, specially when you are talking about army positioning and abstract things like that which need visual aid. I'm not saying that all of these graphics should be hyper top notch with graphic designers hired to do, but it would be really useful, for conveying ideas if you guys used programs such as Paint.net or others to show what you mean when talking about abstract things. Yes!! A whiteboard... blackboard.... whatever you call it!
Hmm...we might try something like that in the future. I'll look it up.
Thanks everyone for all the feedback, we are really new to this, so anything helps  .
EDIT: Also, remember that we have a show coming up this Saturday at 5:00pm EDT on Unit Design! Stream should be easier to find this week as well...we're working on getting it properly up on the calendar and getting it featured HOORAH!
|
Looking forward to the 3rd show!
|
Just listened to the first two shows. I just put it on in the background while playing team games.
I truly enjoyed the in-depth discussion of the first two episodes, and I can't wait to hear episode 3.
I don't know if you guys are looking for suggestions or not but microphone quality is bothersome.
Cheers!
|
United States4883 Posts
Episode 3 on Unit Design is today at 5:00pm EDT. Unfortunately, we were unable to secure any pro guests for this episode, but we've still got plenty plenty to talk about . Also, another big thing is that we got it up on the calendar correctly finally, so it should be much easier to find the stream!
On July 25 2015 16:40 Garemie wrote:
Just listened to the first two shows. I just put it on in the background while playing team games.
I truly enjoyed the in-depth discussion of the first two episodes, and I can't wait to hear episode 3.
I don't know if you guys are looking for suggestions or not but microphone quality is bothersome.
Cheers!
Thanks for listening!
Suggestions are always welcome! If you could be more specific on which mics in particular bother you, that would be helpful. We kind of know Jer's mic is shit, and Teo's sometimes picks up a lot of plosives if he doesn't put the mic far enough away from his face, but there might be other problems we're unaware of .
|
I wouldn't say it's anything in particular, and for where the show is at right now it's perfectly fine. However, in the future I think having some desk mics with proper booms and such would make quality of the show skyrocket, but obviously that won't be happening for quite some time if at all!
EDIT: In response to the blackboard/whiteboard idea as well. Perhaps a tablet such as a Wacom Bamboo and a screen capture would serve this purpose even better than a physical board.
|
Is 5pm EDT in one minute or in an hour and one minute?
Edit: Oh, it's starting now, cool!
|
Italy12246 Posts
Yeah we now have a proper calendar entry, yay!
|
Some day I promise that I will not miss it.
Some day.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2015 08:28 Uvantak wrote:
Some day I promise that I will not miss it.
Some day.
We'll have VODS and audio up soon for you then.
|
I haven't been able to catch a live broadcast yet either, how has viewership been?
|
Very nice show today, saw some of it :D
|
During the show I asked in the chat, why do Adepts have so high attack bonus against light. I don't like units which are designed to be very good against A and very bad against B. I would prefer the effectiveness distance vs A and vs B reduced. The unit would still be better in certain situations, but it would not suffer from hardcounterness.
The reasoning I got was that Adepts would be too powerful if they could snipe buildings and I agree with that. However, if that is the main problem, why that particular issue is not addressed more directly, e.g. by Adepts having reduced damage against Structures, or no damage at all?
One could argue that the static defense would hard-counter Adepts, but Adepts have an unique ability to bypass static defense, unless the wall is completely sealed.
Ultimately, I would love to see Adepts gaining more flat damage (and less "vs Light"), while loosing some of its tankyness trait. Being a tank, that should be the domain of a Zealot.
|
United States4883 Posts
|
United States4883 Posts
On July 26 2015 11:47 Garemie wrote:
I haven't been able to catch a live broadcast yet either, how has viewership been?
It's been around 30 viewers per show, which isn't bad considering that we basically just started, and this was the first time we actually managed to get it on the Event Calendar correctly. We would always love more smiling faces to chat with us during the broadcast .
On July 27 2015 00:39 BlackLilium wrote:
During the show I asked in the chat, why do Adepts have so high attack bonus against light. I don't like units which are designed to be very good against A and very bad against B. I would prefer the effectiveness distance vs A and vs B reduced. The unit would still be better in certain situations, but it would not suffer from hardcounterness.
The reasoning I got was that Adepts would be too powerful if they could snipe buildings and I agree with that. However, if that is the main problem, why that particular issue is not addressed more directly, e.g. by Adepts having reduced damage against Structures, or no damage at all?
One could argue that the static defense would hard-counter Adepts, but Adepts have an unique ability to bypass static defense, unless the wall is completely sealed.
Ultimately, I would love to see Adepts gaining more flat damage (and less "vs Light"), while loosing some of its tankyness trait. Being a tank, that should be the domain of a Zealot.
I'm honestly not sure why Adepts deserve to have "+dmg vs light" other than the fact that zealots are melting too quickly before being able to deal with things like hydralisks and marines. Ironically, a small shield buff to the zealots instead would have probably fixed this up without having to create the adept at all, but it's possible that Blizzard was afraid late game zealot warp-ins would become too strong. Like we said in the cast, zealots still have a good role in harassment and cheap meat shield reinforcement, but Adepts seem to be better in big army engagements.
Tokinho (Ztokdo) brought up that he believes zealots are still better in army engagements than adepts, but I haven't seen a lot of support for this idea. Again, I think this goes back to the idea of zealots just getting kited to death by good players while adepts are somewhat immune to that sort of interaction, making unit tester examples perhaps not as accurate as actual gameplay.
|
How much shield buff would you give to Zealots? Interestingly it is also a change I am experimenting with in my mod.
In my opinion Adepts partially overlap not only with Zealots but also Stalkers. While Adepts are slower and tankier, their share with stalkers an activated ability that does similar things:
- Ability to evade defenses and harass
- Ability to force a battle or retreat from battle
Consequently, Adepts - similarly to Stalkers - cannot have too much basic damage output. In terms of DPS we now have:
- Adept: 6.2, 14.27 vs Light
- Stalker: 6.9, 9.7 vs Armored
A general damage output is very similar, the difference appears only in the "vs X..."
If it was up to me, I would strengthen Adept as a harasser/flanking unit (more mobility, less tankiness), while make Stalker more all-around unit with flat attack and more hp without blink... and call it a Dragoon maybe
|
I have been enjoying catching up on these shows. For feedback I would agree with the graphics idea. For example bring up the image of a map or screenshot of a game to point to certain areas and make comparisons. Maybe even play part of the replay of a game to highlight certain points. Although I have enjoyed the discussions so far and maybe it does not need any of that. I look forward to future shows.
On the unit design I think there is more subtlety to a unit than if it is strong it has to be slow.
Lets say there are several categories for a unit;
damage dealt, damage taken, attack range, movement speed, abilities.
There are many sub-categories of each of the above.
Then as a rough idea, based on the tech level and cost you get a certain number of points to place into each area.
A unit can then be made fairly average, be strong in a couple of these areas and weak in the others or even extremely strong in one area and very weak in the others. Having a healthy mix provides variety and the potential for interesting interactions. Just adding abilities to everything makes the interactions less interesting.
As has been mentioned if the adept can take more damage and has low movement speed, then the zealot could have more movement speed, deal more damage and take less damage. The strengths of each could be reversed, however the adept needs a means of staying alive to be able to transfer to the shade, which is where the high shield-points that can regenerate come in. If it was fast moving with less hit-points it is more likely to die before transferring, and if the adept is fast anyway the shade becomes a less interesting ability.
Likewise the immortal could lose any shield ability and gain a range increase upgrade. lower the damage it can take and increase its range.
The colossus could have a larger splash radius but lower damage, or a greater number of weaker splash attacks that are then more affected by armour.
It all needs to find that subtle line between making units strong in some areas and weak in others but for them to still be usable in a variety of situations and not be to constrained with the situations in which they are useful. They also need to fit with the style of each race, where keeping the above categories in mind, roughly speaking,
Protoss units have greater strengths, where the units compliment and make up for each others weaknesses. fewer more expensive units.
Terran units are more general purpose and are all around average or good in all areas.
Zerg units have fewer strengths and greater weaknesses but are cheaper and more easily massed.
|
This may sound very critical, but I think in particular Whitewing got lost on his argumentation a lot of times and went too much into his specific opinion about something while the original argument was lost.
For example in the "passive ability" discussion when it came to concussive shells, the original point why he didn't like passive abilities per se got lost. The only thing left was that he didn't like concussive shells - which I agree with - which doesn't necessarily have to do with the ability being a passive, but with the ability being a slow and slows/roots and others are just terrible for the game. At least there has not been a good one implemented.
In general I gotta say I don't agree with too many points that were made
- tankivac being "out-of-the-way" design. Actually it is the other way around. A unit not being transportable was the original "out-of-the-way" design. It is thereby very well a synergy that tanks can now fly around in medivacs in my opinion and not tinkered into the game or something like that. The pre-LotV version (which I prefer) on which the synergy is arbitrarily blocked is the actual "out-of-the-way" design and part of what made the tank so unique.
- counterplay in micro does very well exist. A classic example are non-target seeking projectile based attacks/spells as can be found in many classic RTS games (CnC, AoE) that you can outmicro. Of course that doesn't mean that strategical counterplay does not exist either. But I personally find abilities that have various outcomes not only based upon my own play, but also who my opponent microes after they are being used better for the game. That does not mean it is a strategically good decision to run Voidrays into parasitic bombs, but the outcome is not always the same if you start splitting the voidrays. The parasitic bomb remains a strategic counterplay because splitting the voidrays is not sufficient, yet it still counteracts the efficientness of the parasitic bomb.
- about the forcefield: I fully agree that it is a problem with the PvZ matchup and the production/units of those races. But the forcefield spell is inherently bad design because what happens when a forcefield is cast is that afterwards there is nothing you can do about the forcefield and it stays for a very long time. It stops direct interaction between players and though that doesn't mean there is no counterplay to the forcefield, the counterplay is very boring most of the time. (unless you have a superfast dropship in your main army that can bypass forcefields with interesting micro) The usual counterplay is plainly to sit there and wait. So not only does the forcefield force you into pidgeonhold strategic counterplays very often, once it is casted it forces you into very specific tactical counterplay, and basically the most boring one which is "wait for it".
- I very much agree with the point about the old Voidray and everything around it. (damage drop during combats)
Not through with it though, just wanted to comment so far. Really need to go to bed now :D
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 28 2015 10:38 Big J wrote:This may sound very critical, but I think in particular Whitewing got lost on his argumentation a lot of times and went too much into his specific opinion about something while the original argument was lost. For example in the "passive ability" discussion when it came to concussive shells, the original point why he didn't like passive abilities per se got lost. The only thing left was that he didn't like concussive shells - which I agree with - which doesn't necessarily have to do with the ability being a passive, but with the ability being a slow and slows/roots and others are just terrible for the game. At least there has not been a good one implemented. In general I gotta say I don't agree with too many points that were made - tankivac being "out-of-the-way" design. Actually it is the other way around. A unit not being transportable was the original "out-of-the-way" design. It is thereby very well a synergy that tanks can now fly around in medivacs in my opinion and not tinkered into the game or something like that. The pre-LotV version (which I prefer) on which the synergy is arbitrarily blocked is the actual "out-of-the-way" design and part of what made the tank so unique.
- counterplay in micro does very well exist. A classic example are non-target seeking projectile based attacks/spells as can be found in many classic RTS games (CnC, AoE) that you can outmicro. Of course that doesn't mean that strategical counterplay does not exist either. But I personally find abilities that have various outcomes not only based upon my own play, but also who my opponent microes after they are being used better for the game. That does not mean it is a strategically good decision to run Voidrays into parasitic bombs, but the outcome is not always the same if you start splitting the voidrays. The parasitic bomb remains a strategic counterplay because splitting the voidrays is not sufficient, yet it still counteracts the efficientness of the parasitic bomb.
- about the forcefield: I fully agree that it is a problem with the PvZ matchup and the production/units of those races. But the forcefield spell is inherently bad design because what happens when a forcefield is cast is that afterwards there is nothing you can do about the forcefield and it stays for a very long time. It stops direct interaction between players and though that doesn't mean there is no counterplay to the forcefield, the counterplay is very boring most of the time. (unless you have a superfast dropship in your main army that can bypass forcefields with interesting micro) The usual counterplay is plainly to sit there and wait. So not only does the forcefield force you into pidgeonhold strategic counterplays very often, once it is casted it forces you into very specific tactical counterplay, and basically the most boring one which is "wait for it".
- I very much agree with the point about the old Voidray and everything around it. (damage drop during combats)
Not through with it though, just wanted to comment so far. Really need to go to bed now :D
I have nothing against passive abilities. The point I was making is that an ability is not inherently good or bad just because it is passive or active. Concussive shells was an example of a bad passive ability, to demonstrate that an ability being passive doesn't make it inherently good. This was a counterpoint to a common community complaint about active abilities being bad and passive being good.
Concussive shells is bad because it in no way shape or form changes the function of the marauder, nor is there any particular response to it. You don't change your play based on terran getting concussive shells: the response to marauders is the same when they have it and when they don't. Imagine removing concussive shells from the game entirely: what specific plays would suddenly become viable that weren't? The old concussive shell rushes which feature marauders running in circles around units forever is already dead because people learned how to stop those types of plays. It's an ability that doesn't really do much of anything except make kiting slightly easier. It doesn't in any way make kiting possible when it wasn't though: there aren't any situations I can think of where a bio ball is incapable of kiting without concussive shells but can with it. The kiting might be a bit easier with it and more forgiving, but it's hardly necessary (which I think is demonstrated by how nobody tries to get it early anymore).
The tankivac is a specific example of a unit interaction being created to force synergy by allowing one unit to break the way another unit functions. The siege tank is normally required to not be able to move at all while rooted for it's siege mode. Medivac previously could not overwrite that downside: I.E. the functionality of siege mode took priority and was not in any way impacted. Medivacs could pick up any unit that could not move, which is to be expected of a unit that roots itself to the ground. The new interaction was a deliberate modification of the siege tank and medivac to allow it to break the original intent of siege mode. This is an artificial interaction. Note that there is synergy there in one context of the word (units working together to do something better). However, as I define synergy, it is a unit working well with another unit without changing the way the unit works. The siege tanks "I can't move at all" mechanic is completely removed when a medivac lifts it. That's a specifically coded interaction with deliberate forced intent. The siege tanks "No movement at all" gets replaced with "No movement at all, unless a medivac lifts it". Note the exemption here: if you played zerg, mind controlled an scv, built an entire terran army, and tried to lift the sieged tank with an overlord, it would not work. That's not synergy as I generally define it, because it requires a deliberate modification of the unit to make it work.
My point was that the phrase "Counterplay" is typically incorrectly applied and misused in an RTS environment. Emphasis on game design necessarily focuses on strategic decisions with damage control micro situations being a secondary element. The appropriate strategic response to a play is the counter to it: sometimes that is micro if you already have the correct units, but the point is that being in a situation in which you cannot micro against what your opponent is doing is not an example of a lack of counterplay: you've already botched the counterplay by getting into that situation. In mobas (where the term as used comes from), there are only 5 heroes on the field for each team (or whatever number the game uses), and therefore counterplay refers to being able to respond to what a specific hero is doing. Incidentally, it often is done before the interaction in question comes up, such as by choosing the right talent ahead of time or buying the correct item.
As to the force field, there's nothing you can do once you're out of position and a doom drop winds up in your base either, beyond damage control. There are many mechanics in the game for which the optimal response after it hits is to cut your losses and try to see what you can make work after the fact. Forcefields are a mechanic by which a protoss can defend himself with a weaker force (necessary given production rates in PvZ and strength/weaknesses of units at specific timings), or can punish an unprepared or out of position opponent. Being unprepared or out of position (or poorly controlling your forces) is punished by many mechanics in this game, not just forcefield. In this way, forcefield isn't really any different than fungal growth causing an entire big ball of units to die because they got caught, or a ghost landing a nice EMP on important caster units, or any number of other punishing moves. Forcefields are a space controlling ability, you have to respect it ahead of time, and the correct response is to plan for it. The lack of a response to forcefields after you are caught is not an inherently problematic situation in an RTS. They would be problematic and would lack "Counterplay" if you also could not prepare a response ahead of time. There are a wide range of responses, which is why protoss doesn't just keep going mass sentry for the entire game. Just as the counterplay to blinking into a bunch of unseen bio units and getting blown up is to get vision of the map ahead before blinking forward, the counter to forcefields is to be prepared ahead of time, not react after they are down.
The point is, if you are caught by forcefields, it's because you made a mistake. You either engaged when you shouldn't have, were out of position, or were completely unprepared for them. There are a good array of responses to forcefields, like forcing engagements in wide areas of the map where they are ineffective, getting burrow move on roaches, massive units, flying units, avoiding the army, overwhelming the forces with flanks, etc. Most of them require you to make a decision ahead of time.
|
While there are bits where I didn't agree with Whitewing during the show (e.g. the Adept upgrade discussion), this response to Forcefields is great! It's not what you do after forcefields go up, it's what you do before that!
Correct if I am wrong - the early sentry/stalker pushes usually do not involve observers, right? How viable would it be to burrow some banelings on the likely path of sentries?
|
I have nothing against passive abilities. The point I was making is that an ability is not inherently good or bad just because it is passive or active. Concussive shells was an example of a bad passive ability, to demonstrate that an ability being passive doesn't make it inherently good. This was a counterpoint to a common community complaint about active abilities being bad and passive being good.
Sorry, I must have missunderstood your point there. I can fully agree with that.
Concussive shells is bad because it in no way shape or form changes the function of the marauder, nor is there any particular response to it. You don't change your play based on terran getting concussive shells: the response to marauders is the same when they have it and when they don't. Imagine removing concussive shells from the game entirely: what specific plays would suddenly become viable that weren't? The old concussive shell rushes which feature marauders running in circles around units forever is already dead because people learned how to stop those types of plays. It's an ability that doesn't really do much of anything except make kiting slightly easier. It doesn't in any way make kiting possible when it wasn't though: there aren't any situations I can think of where a bio ball is incapable of kiting without concussive shells but can with it. The kiting might be a bit easier with it and more forgiving, but it's hardly necessary (which I think is demonstrated by how nobody tries to get it early anymore).
I don't like the ability, but just because it doesn't have a strategical implication doesn't mean it is bad. It plainly makes the marauder a little better at kiting or in general in combat (opponents hit your army later, you get to do more damage). It is thus not different from a passive stats upgrade such as combat shields or chitinous plating. Which btw can also be considered a passive ability on its own (e.g. the ability to block 3incoming damage).
The tankivac is a specific example of a unit interaction being created to force synergy by allowing one unit to break the way another unit functions. The siege tank is normally required to not be able to move at all while rooted for it's siege mode. Medivac previously could not overwrite that downside: I.E. the functionality of siege mode took priority and was not in any way impacted. Medivacs could pick up any unit that could not move, which is to be expected of a unit that roots itself to the ground. The new interaction was a deliberate modification of the siege tank and medivac to allow it to break the original intent of siege mode. This is an artificial interaction. Note that there is synergy there in one context of the word (units working together to do something better). However, as I define synergy, it is a unit working well with another unit without changing the way the unit works. The siege tanks "I can't move at all" mechanic is completely removed when a medivac lifts it. That's a specifically coded interaction with deliberate forced intent. The siege tanks "No movement at all" gets replaced with "No movement at all, unless a medivac lifts it". Note the exemption here: if you played zerg, mind controlled an scv, built an entire terran army, and tried to lift the sieged tank with an overlord, it would not work. That's not synergy as I generally define it, because it requires a deliberate modification of the unit to make it work.
Has someone actually tried that? Because I would consider it weird if blizzard didn't plainly implement that synergy via the "cargo space" value of the unit which was previously 0 (=cannot be lifted) and is now probably 8 (=takes 8cargo space in a transport). Without trying it I would have assumed it was possible to lift a siege tank with an overlord in LotV.
That the unit is visually rooted into the ground is a nice flavor to the unit, but not a gameplay functionality. In terms of being liftable, every other unit is liftable (even if it is way too big for the transport or way too heavy according to the lore - Thors, Ultralisks) so why wouldn't the siege tank be? The reason is to create artificially good gameplay and remove synergy where there would be.
My point was that the phrase "Counterplay" is typically incorrectly applied and misused in an RTS environment. Emphasis on game design necessarily focuses on strategic decisions with damage control micro situations being a secondary element. The appropriate strategic response to a play is the counter to it: sometimes that is micro if you already have the correct units, but the point is that being in a situation in which you cannot micro against what your opponent is doing is not an example of a lack of counterplay: you've already botched the counterplay by getting into that situation. In mobas (where the term as used comes from), there are only 5 heroes on the field for each team (or whatever number the game uses), and therefore counterplay refers to being able to respond to what a specific hero is doing. Incidentally, it often is done before the interaction in question comes up, such as by choosing the right talent ahead of time or buying the correct item.
Due to popular demand blizzard is trying to make it a more primary element. Though it can never replace the power of numbers and composition, it can take a much bigger role in the game and I really like that about the new unit/ability designs.
As to the force field, there's nothing you can do once you're out of position and a doom drop winds up in your base either, beyond damage control. There are many mechanics in the game for which the optimal response after it hits is to cut your losses and try to see what you can make work after the fact. Forcefields are a mechanic by which a protoss can defend himself with a weaker force (necessary given production rates in PvZ and strength/weaknesses of units at specific timings), or can punish an unprepared or out of position opponent. Being unprepared or out of position (or poorly controlling your forces) is punished by many mechanics in this game, not just forcefield. In this way, forcefield isn't really any different than fungal growth causing an entire big ball of units to die because they got caught, or a ghost landing a nice EMP on important caster units, or any number of other punishing moves. Forcefields are a space controlling ability, you have to respect it ahead of time, and the correct response is to plan for it. The lack of a response to forcefields after you are caught is not an inherently problematic situation in an RTS. They would be problematic and would lack "Counterplay" if you also could not prepare a response ahead of time. There are a wide range of responses, which is why protoss doesn't just keep going mass sentry for the entire game. Just as the counterplay to blinking into a bunch of unseen bio units and getting blown up is to get vision of the map ahead before blinking forward, the counter to forcefields is to be prepared ahead of time, not react after they are down.
The point is, if you are caught by forcefields, it's because you made a mistake. You either engaged when you shouldn't have, were out of position, or were completely unprepared for them. There are a good array of responses to forcefields, like forcing engagements in wide areas of the map where they are ineffective, getting burrow move on roaches, massive units, flying units, avoiding the army, overwhelming the forces with flanks, etc. Most of them require you to make a decision ahead of time.
That is the status quo and gameplay as you describe here is widely considered as unfun. Imo you are focusing too much on strategical interactions with the forcefield. What you are saying in essence comes down to "there is a response to forcefields so that you don't lose", i.e. it is not imbalanced. That doesn't say anything about its design. You talk a lot about how it creates strategical interaction. But creating strategical interaction is by far the easiest part of design, most things in the game have that. That doesn't make most things in the game good because of that. And the forcefield doesn't do a lot besides that and requiring skill for the user, while the opponent cannot do a lot besides fielding his strongest hardcounters to the sentry and maybe using the one or other gimmick to counter it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
