|
On February 22 2016 03:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote:
There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile. I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept.
Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting.
|
On February 22 2016 03:57 CheddarToss wrote:
Fun for whom? The player abusing Tankivacs or the player having to deal with that BS?
It only has to be more fun than it is frustrating to be overall a good addition.
On February 22 2016 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 03:53 Grumbels wrote:On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote:
There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile. I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept. Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting.
There are many different contradicting opinions on them, they have both ruined and improved TvT, invalidated and revolutionized mech, they create fun and exciting micro but don't allow for counterplay. One thing they do seem to be is controversial.
My own personal theory is that in a game which (for terran) expressly revolves around medivacs, where medivacs are the primary way for ground units to acquire mobility, where viewers and Blizzard alike consider that facilitating medivac harassment is the most promising direction to improve gameplay, it means that allowing for some form of synergy between the medivac and siege tank should be seen as restoring parity or normalizing the siege tank.
Based on this it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of people support the combo and think it's great fun. If one starts to ruminate about how the siege tank ought to play out in a certain way based on a unit concept dating to 1998, then that runs the risk of being elitist sentiment which seeks to force SC2 to play out in accordance with one's vision for how a sequel to BW ought to play out, regardless of what people actually find fun and regardless of what would actually be a sound design concept in the highly dynamic environment of SC2.
I don't like this environment, and find the tankivac emblematic for the failures of the game. But ignoring all of that, since that's just my opinion, -- I do think that if something is thought to be fun then it's fun and shouldn't be singled out. And you might be right that it makes the game worse in some ways, but I can't really offer a competing judgment on that since I have no personal experience with it. I'll take your word for it, but I just want to warn people to not try to abandon the modern iteration of the siege tank just because they find it distasteful.
That is to say, would people have the same opinion on the siege tank if it had been newly introduced to SC2 in Legacy of the Void? If they did not have the example of Brood War to compare it by?
|
United Kingdom20319 Posts
A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
|
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote:
A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
But, to belabor my point, where is your evidence for that? I could equally state that diversity is an euphemism for allowing badly designed units to continue to exist, or that by your reasoning for the purpose of diversity random units should get various newly introduced drawbacks. The idea that there should be an exception to mobile, microable units seems a bit arbitrary. The evidence says that people don't enjoy to watch / play turtle mech and don't enjoy playing with immobile units. You have to address these claims in order to convince that your theory will help to improve SC2, since your call for diversity can be twisted to support virtually everything.
--
(just for clarification, when I say "mobility" I don't literally mean unit speed, just the ability of a unit to respond to various dynamic threats such as mutalisks and ravagers, as well as the ability to flee from battle -- I think SC2 is so back and forth with so many dynamic, speedy units, that if you don't possess this sort of ability you don't really fit with the game)
|
On February 22 2016 05:21 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 03:57 CheddarToss wrote:
Fun for whom? The player abusing Tankivacs or the player having to deal with that BS? It only has to be more fun than it is frustrating to be overall a good addition. Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 04:17 Big J wrote:On February 22 2016 03:53 Grumbels wrote:On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote:
There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile. I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept. Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting. There are many different contradicting opinions on them, they have both ruined and improved TvT, invalidated and revolutionized mech, they create fun and exciting micro but don't allow for counterplay. One thing they do seem to be is controversial. My own personal theory is that in a game which (for terran) expressly revolves around medivacs, where medivacs are the primary way for ground units to acquire mobility, where viewers and Blizzard alike consider that facilitating medivac harassment is the most promising direction to improve gameplay, it means that allowing for some form of synergy between the medivac and siege tank should be seen as restoring parity or normalizing the siege tank. Based on this it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of people support the combo and think it's great fun. If one starts to ruminate about how the siege tank ought to play out in a certain way based on a unit concept dating to 1998, then that runs the risk of being elitist sentiment which seeks to force SC2 to play out in accordance with one's vision for how a sequel to BW ought to play out, regardless of what people actually find fun and regardless of what would actually be a sound design concept in the highly dynamic environment of SC2. I don't like this environment, and find the tankivac emblematic for the failures of the game. But ignoring all of that, since that's just my opinion, -- I do think that if something is thought to be fun then it's fun and shouldn't be singled out. And you might be right that it makes the game worse in some ways, but I can't really offer a competing judgment on that since I have no personal experience with it. I'll take your word for it, but I just want to warn people to not try to abandon the modern iteration of the siege tank just because they find it distasteful. That is to say, would people have the same opinion on the siege tank if it had been newly introduced to SC2 in Legacy of the Void? If they did not have the example of Brood War to compare it by?
The thing is that we play an RTS game. In general there is no need that every unit can always active to create action. I agree that mobility is a huge part of creating fun gameplay, but you don't need everything to be mobile and active for that. The core problem I see is twofold, for one mobile units/compositions are too strong in combats which forces static units to be even stronger, or not be that static at all. For the other blizzard has not repaired fundamental "win-more" dynamics like 2 supply spellcasters and skydeathballs, Mules and walking 0-supply "static" defenses. Ergo everyone always just sees how fun mobile styles are, because the others like Swarm Hosts, BL/Infestor, Skytoss, Colossus/Templar deathballs, Raven-mech, Ghost-Mech in practice never max out on strenght + Show Spoiler +still got a hdralisk? make an infestor instead! Still got a hellion? Make a raven instead! Still got 2 stalkers? Make a Tempest instead!
Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units.
|
On February 22 2016 06:09 Big J wrote:
Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units.
Well, there is a difference between larger scale trends and local improvements to the game. Something can be good locally but still contribute to a worrying trend. I tend to roll my eyes whenever Blizzard suggests a speed improvement to a unit to improve it, and similarly I'm also confused whenever they remove upgrades to make units more valuable. However, they might be good solutions for immediate problems. Maybe the new siege tank does decrease diversity, and maybe it does help destroy the more static and slow-paced styles that are being phased out in LotV. But those are trends; another way to view the change is to ask whether in isolation this change makes the game more enjoyable.
The point is that if someone disagrees with a trend then the trend should be addressed, one shouldn't single out this one change as the moment where one finally makes a stand against Blizzard's direction for the game. Because when you allow this to depend on individual changes, it very quickly starts to pertain primarily to all the pros and cons of a single change, and provokes all sorts of theories based not around the trend but around this one change to this one unit. That is to say, it allows sentiment to play a part and not purely rational analysis.
I just really think that any notion of the siege tank having to play out in a certain way because of certain expectations is a dangerous line of thinking as a developer, or as someone trying to rationally analyze game design.
See also this. When does something constitute a trend? When should one take offense at a single change because it contributes to a trend?
|
On February 22 2016 06:22 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 06:09 Big J wrote:
Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units. Well, there is a difference between larger scale trends and local improvements to the game. Something can be good locally but still contribute to a worrying trend. I tend to roll my eyes whenever Blizzard suggests a speed improvement to a unit to improve it, and similarly I'm also confused whenever they remove upgrades to make units more valuable. However, they might be good solutions for immediate problems. Maybe the new siege tank does decrease diversity, and maybe it does help destroy the more static and slow-paced styles that are being phased out in LotV. But those are trends; another way to view the change is to ask whether in isolation this change makes the game more enjoyable. The point is that if someone disagrees with a trend then the trend should be addressed, one shouldn't single out this one change as the moment where one finally makes a stand against Blizzard's direction for the game. Because when you allow this to depend on individual changes, it very quickly starts to pertain primarily to all the pros and cons of a single change, and provokes all sorts of theories based not around the trend but around this one change to this one unit. That is to say, it allows sentiment to play a part and not purely rational analysis. I just really think that any notion of the siege tank having to play out in a certain way because of certain expectations is a dangerous line of thinking as a developer, or as someone trying to rationally analyze game design. See also this. When does something constitute a trend? When should one take offense at a single change because it contributes to a trend?
As a mathematician a trend is whatever its definition says. If that is not clear, I will try to find one for myself and only then argue whether something is a trend or not. Any other approach is not valid.
If a gameplay element does not play to its intended design (which can be vague enough at the start of the design process to allow for a lot of user-freedom) it is bad design. Since I am not the designer of SC2 - nor is there just a single one of them - I cannot tell what the expectations for the siege tank, any other gameplay element or the game as a whole are. I can only say how I would prefer the game to be designed for and that rather simply in that circumstance is with the tank playing a strong (but obviously not leading to imbalances), slow anti-ground/splash support role. The keyword obviously being strong, since that word can have a variety of meanings, which I don't mind leaving open to the player. The reasoning has nothing to do with Broodwar, but rather my personal enjoyment of SC2-games including the siege tank in this traditional role.
|
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote:
A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
This. We can close the topic.
|
Back to Ravager all-ins in TvZ. Can't wait.
|
On February 22 2016 07:21 NKexquisite wrote:
Back to Ravager all-ins in TvZ. Can't wait.
those are just things they want to test in a balance test map. Disruptor shield nerf is long overdue and they tested it a long time ago but it's not implemented yet -hopefully will be soon. I'm glad they're taking chances and testing things so that they can react quickly if blatant imbalance arises.
|
On February 22 2016 07:21 NKexquisite wrote:
Back to Ravager all-ins in TvZ. Can't wait.
While they'll definitely make a resurgence, no doubt that it will still be weaker, with both marginally stronger tank shot and weaker corrosive bile attack. If it's still too strong, I imagine they'd find a way to nerf the ravager, such as a range upgrade to corrosive bile or something. Keep in mind the bile will be weaker against bunkers, too.
|
I don't like the damage change because one extra ravager basically counters the nerf.
Rather, I think the cooldown is the issue. People are spamming the ability too much.
|
On February 22 2016 09:53 DinoMight wrote:
I don't like the damage change because one extra ravager basically counters the nerf.
Rather, I think the cooldown is the issue. People are spamming the ability too much.
Yeah, the way it is now, there is no differentiator between a bad and a good Zerg player. The ability is powerful and spamable.
|
Ravager spell will need some kind of rework, but yeah right now the most stupid thing in the game is the tankivac.
Next, I'd like to see blizzard look at revelation and blink prism.
|
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote:
A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
Exactly. Is ok if the tankivac is fun and adds micro and what not, but every other damn terran think already got its mobility boosted and now everything is super fast.
WM can burrow in 1 sec.
Medivac can not only be boosted but they even have a upgrade that makes them boost more.
Banshees have a speed upgrade.
Liberators, are siege units, that fucking fly.
Ravens got a speed buff.
Cyclones are as fast as hellions.
Even fucking BCs can now teleport.
Every fucking thing is fast and mobile, maybe, just maybe, we need a unit, ONE UNIT, that is strong but nor super fast/mobile, not another stupid super mobility unit, god knows terran has enough of that shit.
|
On February 22 2016 10:46 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote:
A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO. Exactly. Is ok if the tankivac is fun and adds micro and what not, but every other damn terran think already got its mobility boosted and now everything is super fast. WM can burrow in 1 sec. Medivac can not only be boosted but they even have a upgrade that makes them boost more. Banshees have a speed upgrade. Liberators, are siege units, that fucking fly. Ravens got a speed buff. Cyclones are as fast as hellions. Even fucking BCs can now teleport. Every fucking thing is fast and mobile, maybe, just maybe, we need a unit, ONE UNIT, that is strong but nor super fast/mobile, not another stupid super mobility unit, god knows terran has enough of that shit.
BCs are now harass units. You go around the map, attack a base, then teleport back home.
http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg
|
On February 22 2016 09:53 DinoMight wrote:
I don't like the damage change because one extra ravager basically counters the nerf.
Rather, I think the cooldown is the issue. People are spamming the ability too much.
ravagers pretty much tickle immo/archon/(well controlled stalkers) as it is. The ability needs to be spamable to have any impact at all.
|
So, if strong and immobile are good for the game (which is a point I don't really agree on at the moment), I guess the next step on which everyone advocating for a strong immobile tank would agree, would be to give a big buff to the Lurker as it is not usable in professional game in the ZvT match up right now, of course in a way that would not fucked up PvZ? Also a rework on the colossi, something like a big damage buff, but with less mobility.
|
On February 22 2016 20:14 Vanadiel wrote:
So, if strong and immobile are good for the game (which is a point I don't really agree on at the moment), I guess the next step on which everyone advocating for a strong immobile tank would agree, would be to give a big buff to the Lurker as it is not usable in professional game in the ZvT match up right now, of course in a way that would not fucked up PvZ? Also a rework on the colossi, something like a big damage buff, but with less mobility.
Lurkers are fantastic in ZvP. Heavy Lurker play actually looks a bit like mech. I've seen them in ZvZ a lot to. I'd be surprised if we don't see them in ZvT some time soon, though probably not against Tank play.
|
I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. If you think back to SC1, BW, RA, Warcraft 3, etc., it has always been. I feel that it is a necessity and staple to the RTS genre because of the fact that play occurs on a set map, with positioning and map design offering opportunities for mobility and static defense. You can not claim to have mobile units in a game that does not have immobile units - it would be like referring to air units in a game like World of Warplanes - what is the point if everything is an air unit?
The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game. The one unit that actually has the most defining "artillery mode" to extend its range and power in exchange for utmost immobility is technically removed from the game. This drastically impacts territorial and map driven strategies, and also indirectly takes away from the strategic decision to make mobile units. It is beyond me how many are willing to have the tankivac continue to exist. If the game could have existed with only one mirror matchup, I would think that most players would get the most fun out of playing and spectating HOTS TvT.
Currently, TvT is completely changed from a strategic positional game to a twitch reflex Blitz Chess type matchup where the pressure of one second decision making can trump 5-10 minutes of well thought out and flawless gameplay from a macro and micro perspective. Mistakes should hurt, but the extent of the punishment in TvT tankivac play makes the prior minutes of a game less exciting to watch because they are in a sense less meaningful. At least in ZvZ the action is more spread out into "mini-battles" with several being able to occur on the same screen with more spread out baneling play, etc. If you spread out your units somewhat in ZvZ, it is possible to deal with the volatility and still have your solid play/macro determine a great deal of the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
