|
On August 22 2016 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's not about not liking it, it's about not liking everything about the game for reasons we discuss here.
You will never like 100% about a game or any work of art really. Discussing the design behind it, trying to understand why you don't like it and how it would be possible to change that, etc is incredibly fun and rewarding.
A lot of people would never ever play bw because it's as mechanically hard as it is. That doesn't mean that these people wouldn't enjoy the general pace, the units, the economy, the pathing (or rather what it does), etc.
In the end blizzard obviously has the last word, but that doesn't stop people from arguing about the topic, and that is a good thing imo.
Are these discussions gonna change sc2? Maybe not, but it will change your understanding of the topic if there are enough people willing to make (good) points.
You can certainly discuss parts of the game you like/dislike, and I enjoy these discussions.
Will there be changes through our discussions? Maybe, maybe not. Hell I didn't think Avilo would get the mech buffs he's been lobbying for since forever, but eventually Blizz listened and he might get what he wants. I think he should change his name to Trumpvilo.
But asking for Blizzard to change the pace of the game is, in my opinion, a "drastic change", and they already stated that isn't going to happen.
|
Yeah that probably would be a "drastic change". It's really hard to tell though what "drastic" really means though.
I mean in some cases it's obvious. Sc2 will never be more like wc3 with heroes and stuff, that is quite obviously "drastic".
Would a high ground change already be drastic? Probably, it changes a fundamental aspect of how the game works. I am not 100% sure about it though.
I still hoped for blizzard to be open minded about a different pathing, obviously that would be a drastic change as well though.
So yeah, i don't expect it. I will still argue for it though, just because i think the current pathing is one of the biggest "problems" in sc2. It creates deathballs (one thing blizzard always said they wanna address), it makes bio so strong that every other race is balanced around it, etc
It will never change, but i still think it's worth discussing, trying to understand if it's a problem, possible solutions, etc
PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here 
|
Why they didn't buffed the unsieged attack of the tank? Shouldn't it be stronger too? Additionally I think, the unsieged tank should be stronger against the ultralisk than the sieged mode and it would make more sense in my opinion... :D
|
On August 22 2016 06:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here
Its a very common argument here, whenever something they don't like is being changed in terran they just call "AVILO, AVILO!!" like if he actually holds that much power.
|
On the Avilo, I just use him because he has been incredibly vocal about mech buffs. I know he isn't the only one though.
About pathing, I'm not sure what can be done about it. The current pathing is an improvement from BW, but I kind of liked the stupid herp derp pathing in BW. It was a technological limitation that players overcame, and that showed in gameplay.
I don't think SC2 should have an artificial pathing difficulty just for the sake of difficulty.
I think pathing is in the realm of mapmaking than balance or design.
|
On August 22 2016 06:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:Yeah that probably would be a "drastic change". It's really hard to tell though what "drastic" really means though. I mean in some cases it's obvious. Sc2 will never be more like wc3 with heroes and stuff, that is quite obviously "drastic". Would a high ground change already be drastic? Probably, it changes a fundamental aspect of how the game works. I am not 100% sure about it though. I still hoped for blizzard to be open minded about a different pathing, obviously that would be a drastic change as well though. So yeah, i don't expect it. I will still argue for it though, just because i think the current pathing is one of the biggest "problems" in sc2. It creates deathballs (one thing blizzard always said they wanna address), it makes bio so strong that every other race is balanced around it, etc It will never change, but i still think it's worth discussing, trying to understand if it's a problem, possible solutions, etc PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here
early in WoL development DB had sort of a "stare down" with the community about the high ground issue. and in a nice but firm way said he would never revisit the issue. DB did the same thing with pathing .. stating in a very arrogant way ( and DB is very diplomatic so i was surprised by his message delivery) stated... "we're not making the pathing worse.... if this is how tthe game turns out.. that is how it will be.."
so i suspect a pathing change and a high/low ground damage percentage won't happen
|
My personal opinion  is:
- it's true that pathing and unit selections (to name just two) probably contributed in a strong way to made BW what it is, and to balance the game
- I wouldn't like to have "outdated" pathing or unit selection just because it has been shown (in a *different* game) to balance the game
SC2 feels much better to control than BW, the units respond better and more accurately to my commands, and it's sooo much more easy and simple to be able to select my whole army without the 12-units limit. Both changes go in the direction of making the game easier to control and more natural to play. Blizzard can act on other handles to balance it, without going back to a more unnatural (*in my opinion and for my feeling*) way to control the units.
I understand their statement that they don't want to revisit the pathing drastically, I think that any new players that would buy the game and start to play it, finding a BW-like pathing (with stalkers wandering around like dragoons) would be negatively surprised and maybe this would be a big "no" for new players (at least when I bought SC2 - knowing nothing about the competitive scene etc. - I was *expecting* a much more modern game wrt BW, which I played when I was younger).
|
About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible.
One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
|
On August 22 2016 07:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:
About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible.
One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
So you want units to have a larger collision radius so they spread out more? I can't predict what kind effect that change would have, but it would create problems around narrow pathways, and would be an indirect nerf to any unit that has an aoe or splash radius though
|
I want units to spread out more while moving, yes. That would buff defenders advantage (which is imo good) and nerf deathballs because you cannot have your insane dps on a small area anymore while attacking.
Not sure what you mean with "problems" around narrow pathways tbh, imo it would actually make these meaningful.
AOE as it is now would be nerfed, but at the same time you could actually have strong aoe again which kills stuff because it wouldn't be easy to hit that "great storm" or "beautiful fungal"
Do i want units to be as derpy as they were in bw? Not necessarily, but i want some of that pathing effect in sc2 because i think it would make the game better in some regards.
If that includes that people have to micro manage their units a bit more (as in unit placement during fights, not pressing ability buttons) that's also a plus for me personally. Again, 'more like' bw, not exactly as bw.
|
On August 22 2016 06:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
About pathing, I'm not sure what can be done about it. The current pathing is an improvement from BW, but I kind of liked the stupid herp derp pathing in BW. It was a technological limitation that players overcame, and that showed in gameplay.
I don't think SC2 should have an artificial pathing difficulty just for the sake of difficulty.
I think pathing is in the realm of mapmaking than balance or design.
Nothing should be done about it but I really wish people didn't always frame this topic this way. How units move in an RTS is as central to its gameplay as, say, how cars move in a racing game. How well the cars handle around corners, how fast they accelerate and so forth. If everyone thought that racing games with unwieldy cars were inherently worse it would really stifle the genre creatively... which is exactly where the RTS genre is right now. Imagine how interesting it would be to play an RTS with both units that move like SC2 zerglings and units that move like SC dragoons. It could be something to experiment but instead most of the genre's fans will write off anything outside of a narrow comfort zone as outdated, artificial difficulty, etc.
But that's way outside the scope of this discussion. SC2's swarm pathing was a core design choice that's shaped everything that came after. It would make more sense to question assumptions from SC1 that didn't necessarily carry over (for example, whether circular-AoE abilities should be as ubiquitous as they are) than it would be to change unit pathing to be more like SC1.
|
I agree nothing should be done about pathing, but Red Viper's concerns wasn't so much about pathing, but unit size and collision. He doesn't like how easily units clump together, thus encouraging deathballs that many players dislike. And he certainly doesn't want BW pathing implemented.
|
Pathing is like the number 1 thing they should have fixed about SC2. Without fixing pathing everything else is just a bandaid.
|
On August 22 2016 07:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:
About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible.
One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
Very well said.
I think that most people mentioning pathing as an issue in sc2 means that units tend to clump too much instead of "reintroducing dumb AI from BW".
|
but can't you always clump them up by clicking the center of the army instead of outside? or there will always be holes present eg. allowing lings to pass through?
|
On August 23 2016 18:07 mantequilla wrote:
but can't you always clump them up by clicking the center of the army instead of outside? or there will always be holes present eg. allowing lings to pass through?
Yes you can, but only if you want to.
There is a really old video showing a change in map editor and how it affects the unit movement and their formation: youtu.be
|
David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
|
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote:
David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
one thing is the split micro vs bunch up micro where it is debatable which is cooler and I can understand points for both sides.
However the other thing is keeping formation.
In current sc2 version units won't keep their formation and will clump up very fast which makes big armies look bad (what The_Red_Viper said) and also makes You have no choice but to "reformat" them again and again after every amove whereas with change like in the video you have a choice to keep your army in any formation you want, including both clumped formation and split formation which makes the difference.
|
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote:
David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
Or moar harrassment.
|
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote:
David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
You and David Kim should never design video games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
