EPTThey should hurry up with the test map matchmaking, I got spoiled by these changes and the base game feels so stale in comparisson.
LotV Design Changes announced - Page 39
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
They should hurry up with the test map matchmaking, I got spoiled by these changes and the base game feels so stale in comparisson. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
"just build a nydus" as one user pointed out is non-sense and I don't see overlap here, if anything a nydus would combo better with infestors since they have an escape route if you manage their mana properly (which isn't always easy when you have them in a big group). I see more possibilities and opportunities with the infestor now, which is better than before because right now (pre-patch) the infestor is all but useless. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10077 Posts
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved. | ||
|
KiWiKaKi
Canada691 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change. If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved. Here is my interpretation: I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change. I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible. I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks. Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10077 Posts
On August 19 2016 11:57 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Here is my interpretation: I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change. I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible. I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks. Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long. WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add skill to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped. The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW was a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode). Obviously the reason why BW was hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You needed high-end mechanics in order to macro well and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units). The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: The reason why SC2 is in a bad place gameplay-wise is because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change. If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved. I like the fast pace of the game, it's almost akin to cnc games. You're absolutely right about abilities though. And warpins removing defender's advantage. In the end though, I think the game's in a bad place because it's so frustrating to play. It drives people away when you can lose a game because you looked away for 1 second. It's way too punishing. People might scream about skillcap and hard to master in the proscene and whatnot, but if every player lower than master's leaves because the game's too damn frustrating then there's not gonna be any proscene to watch. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On August 19 2016 12:15 TT1 wrote: WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add "skill" to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped. The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW is a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode). Obviously the reason why BW is hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You need high-end mechanics in order to macro and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units). The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience. agree 100% https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/31yyyo/with_lotv_inspiring_a_lot_of_new_ideas_its/ | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On August 19 2016 11:57 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Here is my interpretation: I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change. I don't see that at all. WoL was hard because it was starcraft, and it will always be hard because of the korean leagues. MVP and Nestea were gods at WoL, but they fell off before HotS was released and WoL was still growing. I love HotS and LotV as expansions, but TT1 is right, they added all these new units that may not have been needed. If we went back to core WoL and balanced everything from what we know now? could be a game like BW that lives forever. HotS/LotV were great expansions and it was fun playing with those new units, but maybe we should go back to basics, or wait for BW HD. edit: Though I do like some of the ideas they've used, but overall they should condense some of the units roles and outright delete some. A good example is the Thor, it's a clunky borderline hero unit, you can't balance this unit, change it into a goliath and call it the warhound. The viper should also go, but some of it's abilities should transfer to the infestor, it's abilities would be infested terrans, blinding cloud, and the new tunneling ability with an upgrade. The corruptor doesn't even need an ability for another example. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On August 19 2016 12:15 TT1 wrote: WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add "skill" to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped. The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW was a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode). Obviously the reason why BW was hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You needed high-end mechanics in order to macro and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units). The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience. Yes WoL had a high skillcap, but it was nearly reached. The pros were playing the game at near perfection, and this led to very stale games (ala broodlords/infestors). You want players rewarded for having perfect macro, but I think SC2 wasn't meant to do that. I feel like you want SC2 to be something it isn't, and therefore you view it as a failure. I don't want to go into a BW/SC2 comparison, because that will lead into a never-ending circular debate and futility. I do want to say that BW is exciting to watch, but for very different reasons. It had very different skill-ceilings compared to SC2, and required better macro and micro. However, as you pointed out, this was due to UI and technological limitations. Anything is fun to watch when we know the skill-ceiling is difficult to reach, because we are in awe when we watch the pros do stuff we could never dream of. I enjoyed watching Neeb deftly manage his warp prism against Scarlett. And when she finally managed to get rid of it, he casually sent in the backup. I think we want different things from SC2, which is fine. However, I don't think its a failure. Not quite a complete success, but I like the direction its heading. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4343 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On August 19 2016 13:07 ROOTFayth wrote: they weren't playing the game near perfection at all.... Well I can't say for certain whether they were or not, but I can only judge it from the games I watched. When many games were playing out in nearly the same fashion, and compositions didn't vary, it gave me the impression that there was very little room for improvement. Sure there were 1-off builds that might catch someone by surprise, but those were few and the exception. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know. Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On August 19 2016 02:00 Hider wrote: No if the Liberators actually get really good vs Ultras but worse vs other units, you will not mass it. You will only get a few and then the zerg will adjust his composition. Liberators then become more of a reactive unit. For harass purposes, Liberator is extremely boring: Banshee's, Medivacs and Hellions all provide much more skillful and fun harassoptions. Let's keep the liberator as a unit that is strong positionally in some cases and the Tank as the default positional unit (with a few weakness's that the Liberator can cover). I see what you mean, but there's no point in overspecializing either of the units if they work perfectly well as is. Some bio players will prefer the Lib others Tanks, let there be a choice. There are a lot of things already that differentiates the units. | ||
| ||
