EPTSC2 Multiplayer Panel Summary - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30545 Posts
| ||
|
Elentos
55456 Posts
On November 05 2016 21:33 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: No information about the next year of WCS? Would be nice if information about that would be timely for once. Timely WCS information? I don't think the technology is there yet. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Also raven could use a redesign, so a good opportunity to work as support as well? Also, does it really have to be a goliath from bw? Maybe the goliath from bw but version 2.0 or just some added things to it. 1) Gets stationary like siegetank, with higher range or some extra armor. 2. Press button->can fly for a short moment(but not attack), this way can block muta harass better since it moves better with terrain, also can be used as harass. But need brain when to use it cuz you cant be in air for ever when pressed. And just work on viking from here. As mentioned before, maybe have viking in ground able to shoot air. Now if mutas fly in to harass terran, you can use vikings against mutas since you can be there in time much faster. Just feels like sc2 has so much potential but nothing happens. As hider says, its not a question of what is fun, what feels rewarding its just there for the sake of it. I remember when they started to create this game, they started with terran and protoss and had a bunch of units ready for them. No thought about fun interactions, fun early game, fun poke game. They might have thought about fun/cool tactics but it went to hell with that as well. Just feels like they went with the wrong philosophy from the start. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 05 2016 21:37 Foxxan wrote: So goliaths cant fight mutas cost for cost.. But widowmines exist for terran as support(?) Also raven could use a redesign, so a good opportunity to work as support as well? Also, does it really have to be a goliath from bw? Maybe the goliath from bw but version 2.0 or just some added things to it. 1) Gets stationary like siegetank, with higher range or some extra armor. 2. Press button->can fly for a short moment(but not attack), this way can block muta harass better since it moves better with terrain, also can be used as harass. But need brain when to use it cuz you cant be in air for ever when pressed. 1) They tried higher range, but not stationary. Thats part of what made it feel like mech marine, because you'd stutter step and kite etc. 2) I think this would overlap with pretty much everything terran has, so it wouldn't fit at all into their design philosophy And just work on viking from here. As mentioned before, maybe have viking in ground able to shoot air. Now if mutas fly in to harass terran, you can use vikings against mutas since you can be there in time much faster. Just feels like sc2 has so much potential but nothing happens. As hider says, its not a question of what is fun, what feels rewarding its just there for the sake of it. I remember when they started to create this game, they started with terran and protoss and had a bunch of units ready for them. No thought about fun interactions, fun early game, fun poke game. They might have thought about fun/cool tactics but it went to hell with that as well. Just feels like they went with the wrong philosophy from the start. I don't think Hider is correct with his assumption here though. They do ask what is fun, they just also ask what fits. Just because something is fun does not mean it fits into the game. And looking at BW for inspiration is an obvious choice, since BW pretty much defined what fits into a StarCraft game. And as I wrote in the summary already, they pointed out that those two units aren't the only thing they explored. Then again - I wonder why we never hear about that. Talking about underused units - the PTR is probably the most underused one. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 05 2016 19:46 PharaphobiaSC wrote: 3 hours hours for someone who already know what to change? Your statement doesnt even make sense and there will no WC4... jesus... Yes it takes 3 hours if you know what to change. Not sure how that statement didn't make sense. Obviously you should have a very good idea of what to change if you have 6+ years of working experience as a full time game developer for an AAA-company. Otherwise you are not qualified for the position. Hence I hope your not implying that multiple employees need to spend 40 hours per week on figuring out what to change. Maybe the balance/design team are working on co-op missions or other casual stuff and not the multiplayer. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
And replace them with whom? Ow wait... You can have one Blizzard design guy spend 5-10 hours per week looking at the multiplayer while he spends the rest of his time on other projects. I genuinly hope that is what's actually going on right now - otherwise it makes no sense given how little they actually seem to be doing. I don't think Hider is correct with his assumption here though. They do ask what is fun, they just also ask what fits. I am confused. What assumption are you referring to? Because my point is that a game designer you should have a very strong idea of the unit roles of all races and have a general idea on how to redesign all of the units to accomplish that goal. The time consuming part is the refinement proces and making sure micro interactions are fun. Their whole adventure onto the Goliath seems like a gigantic waste of time if they didn't plan on redesigning existing units. I could easily have told them that in advance and saved them that time. I actually have a specific plan on how to make all terran units have a unique role, and if interested i can provide you with that. But it does involve a ton of fundamental changes across the board. And my second point is that if you don't plan on fundamentally reworking the game then there isn't really anything to spend time on because the game is relatively decent, and can't be signficiantly improved by more band-aids. | ||
|
Dingodile
4132 Posts
I genuinly hope that is what's actually going on right now - otherwise it makes no sense how little they actually are doing. They have to maintain 6 games, 5 of those even for esports. For that, this company is actually super small for creating any new game/expansion. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Thats part of what made it feel like mech marine, because you'd stutter step and kite etc. And the part that can make it feel different is a much slower attack speed and obviously it also needs 10+ range to attack armored air units. Also it doens't need to be nearly as fast. It could be like 2.5 MS (HOTS-time), 10-11 range. Don't see how that would "feel" like a Marine. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
They have to maintain 6 games I am talking about Sc2 balance/design team. They surely are not spending any noticeable time on "maintaining" the multiplayer. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
I also don't think that it is impossible to know what works and what doesn't before you actually try it out. So I don't agree that Blizzard wasted their time on the Goliath. If we're talking about game design goals btw, I'm going to throw in my opinion; I don't even agree with making mech viable at all. The general idea of mech, sitting at your base throwing high burst damage things at your enemy every once in a while is utterly boring. So in that sense, the whole balance patch for Terran is a waste of time. But thats just my opinion, not a general rule. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On November 05 2016 10:31 Dumbledore wrote: So no news? Just saying they tried stuff and it didn't work out? Lol That is Blizzard's MO for Starcraft: try something stupid and when it doesn't work abandon the entire set of ideas associated with it. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
2) I think this would overlap with pretty much everything terran has, so it wouldn't fit at all into their design philosophy Why would it not fit terran? I can see it overlapping with viking - being to similar but with terran? My idea was to change goliath to something with transform - potentially atleast, and if something works great, change viking. Because lets face it, their transforms for terran doesnt work "properly" in my eyes, could be so much more. Blizzard doesnt even look into it at all it seems, why? They are happy with transforming from viking air to viking ground(?) Would be much cooler to have a goliath on factory with transform ability than this viking we have now. They do ask what is fun, they just also ask what fits. Just because something is fun does not mean it fits into the game. Yep agree, pretty standard. But i dont know about the fun part. They just started to look at "fun" recently imo, just recently they started mentioning stuff about micro for both sides etc | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
If we're talking about game design goals btw, I'm going to throw in my opinion; I don't even agree with making mech viable at all. The general idea of mech, sitting at your base throwing high burst damage things at your enemy every once in a while is utterly boring. As a mech fantast, i agree with you. If thats what its all about then its just a boring playstyle. Mech has the potential to be fun as hell - But this is sc2 we are talking about so i dont get to excited for this new patch tbh. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 05 2016 23:07 KeksX wrote: Hider I was referring to the perceived notion that you don't think David Kim cares about fun stuff first, only about bringing but "old stuff". . Yeh don't think I ever said that. I said they need to priortize reworking old stuff. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
If we're talking about game design goals btw, I'm going to throw in my opinion; I don't even agree with making mech viable at all. The general idea of mech, sitting at your base throwing high burst damage things at your enemy every once in a while is utterly boring. So in that sense, the whole balance patch for Terran is a waste of time. But thats just my opinion, not a general rule. Look through some Bw TvZ late game vods. Mech can be awesome if done correctly. The concept is that when you can split your army across multiple locations all over the map and the enemy can attack you and can army trade into you --> You get a great dynamic. But for such a dynamic to work you need reworks across the aboards. And I am pretty sure David Kim and his buddies doesn't really understand what needs to be done. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On November 06 2016 00:10 Hider wrote: Look through some Bw TvZ late game vods. Mech can be awesome if done correctly. The concept is that when you can split your army across multiple locations all over the map and the enemy can attack you and can army trade into you --> You get a great dynamic. But for such a dynamic to work you need reworks across the aboards. And I am pretty sure David Kim and his buddies doesn't really understand what needs to be done. I'm not sure why do you think "you can split your army across multiple locations all over the map and the enemy can attack you and can army trade into you" is not existing in SC2, it sounds to me as typical endgame unit trading and it's not WoL with deathballs 100% of the time anymore. With more spread-out maps and better vision letting players take their positions better (whether maps get different design direction, vision gets buffed somehow or just used far more in the metagame) you can have the same effect. To add to that I think some improvements to the UI could be made to make map awareness more of a standing out part of the game given how important it is to react much quicker in SC2 than in Brood War. But I think aggressiveness towards David Kim and his buddies adds you credibility in this community so I don't know how to discuss with that, I can't say anything against that since I will become an apologist EDIT: I think it would be interesting if they tried out removing textures from the minimap, showing just a map wireframe + vision, it could make a good option instead of the other one that is "make everything black and show units/buildings+resources with no map vision". | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 06 2016 00:07 Hider wrote: Yeh don't think I ever said that. I said they need to priortize reworking old stuff. Thats why I said perceived. It's just what it sounds like when you talk about David Kim and his team sometimes. When I talk about mech being not fun for me, I'm referring to most of BW as well. Yes there are players that might have been able to make mech somewhat exciting (specifically on the non-meching side), but >90% of the players are just turtling and being static, which is extremely boring for me. If I play you on ladder and I realize you're meching, I either die all inning or simply quit. It's just that boring to me. And, though this is just anecdotical, many others I know and see as well. But thats not the point I want to make anyway. I just want to point out that this is an extreme view of mine. I hate mech. I think it's bad, no matter what you do. Yet there are a ton of players that think completely differently - and Blizzard's task is to find out who's "wrong" or "right". Not an easy thing to do. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
The way to look at it is its a rts game we are playing, you are supposed to interact with the enemy -If you dont interact with the enemy for 1-2min, FINE. But we are talking 15min roughly. It does not fit a modern rts game. Yes the camping part is utterly boring, even in broodwar. What hider said though wasnt that the camping part was fun, he said the lategame was fun, when you have options where to attack and how and where to split your armee. The camping part is utterly boring, i think this is a general opinion because lets face it, it should be about interactions and when you dont interact then whats the point of playing. It would be one thing if one decides to camp and the enemy has options here, but enemy doesnt really have options either way | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
I'm not sure why do you think "you can split your army across multiple locations all over the map and the enemy can attack you and can army trade into you" is not existing in SC2, it sounds to me as typical endgame unit trading and it's not WoL with deathballs 100% of the time anymore What you see in Sc2 is harass not army trading. The economy is not set up for a proper army trading dynamic that can result in back-and-fourth games (it will snowball too hard). Hence the only way Blizzard knows to create more action is through buffing harass units. Contrary to popular belief, what we need is higher late game income rate. With more spread-out maps and better vision letting players take their positions better (whether maps get different design direction, vision gets buffed somehow or just used far more in the metagame) You won't get army trading. Only one race that will try to prevent action from occuring in the first place because the overall income rate is too low for the low for the immobile/(the player that scales better) too afford any type of army trading. For army trading to be sustainable it needs to be possible for both races too relatively quickly rebuild the lost army. Like losing one battle at one side of the map only needs to be a small disadvantage. However in Sc2 the immobile player can not just set 7-8 tanks to defend a location, lose it, lose the expo and then come back later on. On the other hand, this was a very typical phenomena in BW. | ||
| ||
