|
On April 10 2016 07:37 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors. When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators. The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth. And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options.
QFT
|
On April 10 2016 07:37 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors. When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators. The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth. And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options.
Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
|
On April 10 2016 08:18 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 07:37 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors. When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators. The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth. And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options. Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks.
Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players.
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
If further changes are needed here, we believe changing the Liberator AA damage to be +Light instead of dealing full damage to everything
Yes, great idea. Let's make it another useless anti air unit like the Thor.
|
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
|
The best game in sc2 history was a mech vs bio game.
The problem was turtling to skyterran which was boring. If the terran played aggressive ground mech the games were very exciting.
Check out TaeJa vs INnoVation or all forGG/gumiho games to see examples of that.
I agree that Taeja vs Innnovation was amazing action. Mech vs Bio.
|
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote:
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
|
On April 10 2016 10:18 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote:
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%. But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
Not trying to nag you, but what would make SC2 a "true esport" in your opinion?
|
On April 10 2016 10:18 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote:
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%. But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
No such thing as 'true esport'.
And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment.
What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter?
Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them.
What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self.
|
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW :
- reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy.
- viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land.
- marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively.
- phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability
- roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
|
On April 10 2016 08:50 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 08:18 Vanadiel wrote:On April 10 2016 07:37 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors. When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators. The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth. And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options. Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has. Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks. Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players.
i only played BW casually, but from what I understand protoss is super op at low levels.
|
On April 10 2016 21:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 08:50 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 08:18 Vanadiel wrote:On April 10 2016 07:37 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors. When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators. The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth. And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options. Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has. Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks. Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players. i only played BW casually, but from what I understand protoss is super op at low levels.
P is not OP at low levels, it's only easier to control. But noob T or Z can beat noob P no problem, they just tend to have moments of fail micro more often. The one match that's really really hard to control is TvZ... In TvP, you'll see noob P get a lot of units slaughtered in bad engagements, in ZvP also sometimes (failed storms, HT killed, slaughtered by lurkers or ultras, etc). There is nothing like "P is OP at low levels". The game is mostly balanced on a strategic, design level, rather than player-skill-meta level. Balancing the design instead of the meta is of course the smarter and more stable approach, it brings quality, diversity and depth to the game (which translates into fun) rather than 50% winrates in unstable match ups full of knowledge and speed checks.
|
On April 10 2016 12:03 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 10:18 NewSunshine wrote:On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote:
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%. But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport. No such thing as 'true esport'. And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment. What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter? Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them. What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self.
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. The original Counterstrike and DotA weren't meant to become million dollar esports titles. It just happened that they got popular and their core principles were presevered and redesigned and rebalanced for esports purposes.
LoL, as far as I understand from the one or other design blog I have read, has been created as an esport to begin with and the ongoing patch-philosophy supports that further.
SC2 on the other hand tries to fight a mouse-problem with cats and a cat problem with snakes and then somehow the designers hope that there will be an equilibrium. The reality is that neither hellbats nor widow mines could make Mech viable against Immortals, Tempests just swung the endgame superarmy balance from (Broodlordbased) Zerg being favored to (Tempestbased) Protoss being favored and ideas like Ultralisks completely shutting down bio in combats while Terran gets a few tools to hardcounter them make for anticlimactic experiences.
Watching the development process of SC2 I feel like that between visionary type of designers that like to create content (e.g. Dustin Browder) and balance managers that like to analyse the existing potential (e.g David Kim) the game is lacking an engineer that builds the bridges between vision and reality.
|
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote:
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
.
counterstrike was a custom game mode made for a shooter Half Life, just like dota. Both recieved massive popularity..
The difference between Cs -> Cs:Go is that valve basically changed nothing about the gameplay itself. They just remade the game on a platform for e sports and great graphics.
People hate on blizzard too much. They could have done a better job, sure, but its a strategy game in 2014. If you bring out a broodwar 2.0 people are going to be even more dissapointed, if you dont people will also be dissapointed.
I agree that they should have focused on making sc2 more fun.
Its way too fast for pro gamers to play properly. Imagine the game at 50% speed. Do you really think you would reach a skill cap in it? -
|
On April 10 2016 21:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 12:03 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 10:18 NewSunshine wrote:On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote:
In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%. But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport. No such thing as 'true esport'. And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment. What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter? Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them. What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self. I think it's a bit more complicated than this. The original Counterstrike and DotA weren't meant to become million dollar esports titles. It just happened that they got popular and their core principles were presevered and redesigned and rebalanced for esports purposes. LoL, as far as I understand from the one or other design blog I have read, has been created as an esport to begin with and the ongoing patch-philosophy supports that further. SC2 on the other hand tries to fight a mouse-problem with cats and a cat problem with snakes and then somehow the designers hope that there will be an equilibrium. The reality is that neither hellbats nor widow mines could make Mech viable against Immortals, Tempests just swung the endgame superarmy balance from (Broodlordbased) Zerg being favored to (Tempestbased) Protoss being favored and ideas like Ultralisks completely shutting down bio in combats while Terran gets a few tools to hardcounter them make for anticlimactic experiences. Watching the development process of SC2 I feel like that between visionary type of designers that like to create content (e.g. Dustin Browder) and balance managers that like to analyse the existing potential (e.g David Kim) the game is lacking an engineer that builds the bridges between vision and reality.
As someone who did play LoL right after the beta was done, I can easily say, they did not create the game to be an 'esport'. They didn't even have rank/ladder games when I first started, only adding that mid-way through the first year. There was no visible ranking system for a good time. So it's closer to Counterstrike & DoTa, becoming popular first then tweaking for esports purposes.
But I agree with how they been handling SC2, that cycle just making counter's against one another has not help make this a better designed game. And their balance philosophy does not help create a better designed game. Their minimalistic approach to simply reach that 50/50 win ratio generally ignores the actual gameplay and how people feel being in those gameplay.
|
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote:
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW :
- reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy.
- viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land.
- marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively.
- phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability
- roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate 
|
On April 10 2016 07:24 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America. Nah it's a matter of major design mistakes never being fixed, "cooking on simmer" for 10years is a pretty stupid thing to do when bad stuff was put into the game to begin with. Yes SC2 has many critical flaws that have been pointed out by many for a long time it is why the game is in a bad state and a ton of people have left it, RTS isn't "toast" nor will it be if a new great game comes around. You keep repeating the same stuff and praise the companies blindly like you want a job there but try and be honest, businesses do really shitty stuff for money sometimes and blizzard has definitely done a lot of that lately (especially after merging with activision and the productivist shareholder board logic instead of passion and dev skill).
there were a motherfucktonne of giant design mistakes during the dawn of the genre. the genre grew in the face of all those bad mistakes because watching 100 units kill each other simultaneously on screen was such a buzz. that's over now... i can watch that on my smart phone.
and if your claim is the genre grew because of great design.. well C&C1 and Warcraft1 are still out there. Great design makes for a timeless classic. Go play them.
|
On April 11 2016 00:16 wjat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote:
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW :
- reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy.
- viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land.
- marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively.
- phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability
- roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale. Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate
Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc.
That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe.
But not only the frequency, the impact of these changes should be big. Removing units should be an option for Blizzard! How come units like the colossus still exist in the game?
But I can only see that happening if Blizzard finally switches the business model to a microtransaction one. If income comes in constantly instead of only at the release of singleplayer content, it would allow Blizzard to invest more into the "StarCraft as a service" type of patching.
|
On April 11 2016 01:12 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2016 00:16 wjat wrote:On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote:
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW :
- reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy.
- viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land.
- marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively.
- phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability
- roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale. Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc. That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe.
In that spirit though, WoL was far more than those last 8 months without a patch.
|
On April 11 2016 01:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2016 01:12 KeksX wrote:On April 11 2016 00:16 wjat wrote:On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote:
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW :
- reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy.
- viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land.
- marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively.
- phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability
- roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale. Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc. That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe. In that spirit though, WoL was far more than those last 8 months without a patch.
That is true, but they stopped doing that relitively quick and let the Broodlord/Infestor era happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
