EPT
Community Feedback Update - November 17 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
prabuty
Poland26 Posts
| ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
| ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
On November 24 2016 03:59 Couguar wrote: checked - yep I am wrong. But its 0.5 range difference that you will waste too much time to achieve in real game. one wrong move and disruptor dies(3 tank shots now It's part of why mech isn't good against protoss past early agression/cheeses. When you play disruptor against bio, if you mess up and don't have any spheres left, terran can just stim and amove. However againt mech, you can just go away. With disurptors you can kite a mech army all the way across the map. | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
And if the mech player is getting kited across the map, he is doing something wrong. If all he have is siege tanks, sure there might be some problems, but just a libe with range upg should make the range difference much more difficult to exploit,forcing air (which might be actually the biggest problem MvP) or blinking stalkers under them for killing those libs, but they will then get shooted by tanks.. Killing lurkers with disruptor for instance, is'nt as easy as it sounds (ofc there is visibility problem) And unless you want the match up to be decided by the P going skytoss in time or not for countering mech, P still need a way to fighting sieged position without shading on tanks. So far i think the main problems of mech are rather skytoss late game or the pressure,harass & good fight the P can take early with an upgraded gateball. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On November 24 2016 16:54 BronzeKnee wrote: How do you feel about someone, who sees something before the unit is even test, even released, calls its terrible and it turns out terrible? Just lucky? Sometimes I just know a bad idea when I see it, it is about understanding the ins and outs of game design. Because what you are saying, is like drawing up a boneheaded play in American Football, and demanding the coaches run it hundreds of thousands of times because only then can you know it doesn't work. That isn't how the world works. You design something that works well theoretically, and then test to see if works well in the game. When the ideas coming out of Blizzard aren't designed well theoretically, don't follow basic game design tenets, then it is easy to call them out as dumb even before they are tested one time. BronzeKnee, I know you are a game designer, so I respect your opinion on the unit design of SC2. However, unless you're a genius designer being sought by all the big name publishers, than your opinion really doesn't carry that much weight. I know you've posted a game you designed, and its had reviews, but have you designed an RTS as elaborate and intricate as SC2 or BW? Were you part of the team that created the most successful online rpg game ever? Did you create a FPS that garnered +20 million players within the first year? I'd guess the answer to these questions is no. When it comes to desgin, I will trust Blizzard way more than I trust you. That doesn't mean you're opinion doesn't carry some merit. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things you say do come true. However, your opinion is just that. And you've spouted 'basic game design tenets' several times, but I haven't found any research that indicates Blizzard broke these tenets. Is there a '10 commandments of game design' that Blizzard broke? Because, respectfully, these tenets are biased. They broke your 'basic game design tenets', not some theoretical set of rules that all publishers must adhere to make a successful game. I did a google search on that specific search term, and I found this link: www.gamasutra.com And no where did it seem Blizzard broke those principles. Again this doesn't mean I think Blizzard is infallible. After all, they are seeking feedback from us, the community, so they know things could be a mistake. But until we play the game and provide the feedback necessary, they won't know what is a mistake yet. Just play the game with an open mind. | ||
|
BalanceEnforcer
37 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
There is simply no counter for Swarm Host with some Hydra protection. Mech cannot fight against mass Locust raining down from the sky. Even if you have multiple Thors you cannot shot down the Locust. If you go mass Blueflame Hellbats you can kill the Locust to some degree but none of your tanks can be in siege mode during this. If Zerg runs in with Hydras and banelings during the locust attack you are dead. And even if Zerg just uses the Swarm Hosts for harass you have no unit that can chase down and kill the Swarm Hosts fast enough. A couple of banshees do nothing when the Swarm Hosts run back to their Hydra support. Hellions are fast enough but takes forever to kill the Swarm Hosts and dies to the support units. The problem is so not much the Swarm Host as a unit but the absurd price. If Swarm Host were 175/125 instead you could still build 4-5 to harass bases or snipe a tank or 2. But with the absurd price of 125/75 you can wipe out entire mech armies without losing a single unit. All the mech player can do is to run away, but when the locusts have finally died there is not enough time to run back and attack the swarm hosts before the next locus wave comes. This needs to be fixed so that we can continue testing mech viability in TvZ. It is a waste of time putting so much effort into a patch and then letting a single mistake block all the good things about the patch. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
How do you feel about someone, who sees something before the unit is even test, even released, calls its terrible and it turns out terrible? Just lucky? What would you say are you best predictions when it comes to Sc2? | ||
|
MiCroLiFe
Norway264 Posts
| ||
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On November 25 2016 02:01 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: And you've spouted 'basic game design tenets' several times, but I haven't found any research that indicates Blizzard broke these tenets. Is there a '10 commandments of game design' that Blizzard broke? Because, respectfully, these tenets are biased. They broke your 'basic game design tenets', not some theoretical set of rules that all publishers must adhere to make a successful game. I know, I'm spending far too much time repeating that to an audience that doesn't understand it. That is the problem. The good thing is, they aren't my game design tenets, they are the ones that other successful games in the industry use right now to succeed. And rather than rehash the same tired few basic statements over and over, I'm going to create a series of threads to educate and enlighten rather than have to listen to these fallacious arguments of authority that you and others have made over and over: "Blizzard is the authority on SC2, and you are not, therefore Blizzard must be right..." I believe right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it, and I think you should too, though it does require critical thinking instead of just defaulting to whoever you think the authority is. I get it though, we are in the middle of a world wide anti-intellectual movement, where the experts are wrong and out to get everyone... someway enriching themselves in the process, the shocking irony being is that some experts are exempt from this and put on a pedestal as our saviors... I need to begin formulating stronger arguments, the kind that put a hook through you nose and drag you along the logical path of understanding, and where you see how fruitless it is to disagree and where the conclusions seem as incredibly obvious as they are. The difficulty is always writing something that isn't too long, so people read it, yet still makes an ironclad argument, all while being readable enough for everyone to understand it. If everyone just read all the League Dev Blogs relating to game design, it would be a huge start, but that would be a lot of reading and would require people to associate game design in League to the different game design mechanics in SC2. Modern game design focuses on removing frustration and increasing fun and is done through a variety of means. Modern games are successful in the sense they a lot of people like to play them, because they are fun. I understand Blizzard has openly said they don't care how many people play SC2 or not, and that itself a problematic view because the simple fact is, people play games for fun, and games that are fun. Regardless of how many people play SC2, it should be fun, not frustrating. League is a textbook example of a well designed game for a variety of reasons, and their game design dev blogs are enlightening and I will be quoting them frequently in my threads, mainly because the arguments they make are obvious. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On November 25 2016 13:40 BronzeKnee wrote: I know, I'm spending far too much time repeating that to an audience that doesn't understand it. That is the problem. The good thing is, they aren't my game design tenets, they are the ones that other successful games in the industry use right now to succeed. And rather than rehash the same tired few basic statements over and over, I'm going to create a series of threads to educate and enlighten rather than have to listen to these fallacious arguments of authority that you and others have made over and over ("Blizzard is the authority on SC2, and you are not, therefore Blizzard must be right..." I believe right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it, and I think you should too, though it does require critical thinking instead of just defaulting to whoever you think the authority is). I need to begin formulating stronger arguments, the kind that put a hook through you nose and drag you along the logical path of understanding, and where you see how fruitless it is to disagree and where the conclusions seem as incredibly obvious as they are. The difficulty is always writing something that isn't too long, so people read it, yet still makes an ironclad argument, all while being readable enough for everyone to understand it. If everyone just read all the League Dev Blogs relating to game design, it would be a huge start, but that would be a lot of reading and would require people to associate game design in League to the different game design mechanics in SC2. Modern game design focuses on removing frustration and increasing fun and is done through a variety of means. Modern games are successful in the sense they a lot of people like to play them, because they are fun. I understand Blizzard has openly said they don't care how many people play SC2 or not, and that itself a problematic view because the simple fact is, people play games for fun, and games that are fun. Regardless of how many people play SC2, it should be fun, not frustrating. League is a textbook example of a well designed game for a variety of reasons, and their game design dev blogs are enlightening and I will be quoting them frequently in my threads, mainly because the arguments they make are obvious. I've read all your arguments, and that's why I've decided to reply now. I totally understand everything you've stated about the design of SC2. And I disagree with most of it. I agree games should be fun. I think SC2 is fun. It's also frustrating, but a game can be both. There is no reason why a game shouldn't be frustrating. Frustration is a challenge that many want to overcome. That feeling of accomplishment when you realize the solution to the frustration is the greatest feeling in the world. It makes me feel like I can do anything. And i've experienced that with SC2. That's where the fun comes in. When a game is just purely fun, with no challenge/frustration, it will become boring. If a game has the right balance of fun and frustration, it will become a good game. I feel SC2 has reached that balance. Sure sometimes it feels more frustating than fun, but that is the beauty of it. If a game is designed to remove frustration and increase fun, than it's audience are children. Because its children that can't handle the frustration of losing. A game that focus on only fun panders to players that can't take frustration. The fact of the matter is that SC2 is an incredibly hard game. No one here can dispute it. It's so hard that many don't find it fun to play. That is something Blizzard intentionally designed. You don't agree with them. I get it. No need to try to hook anyone by the nose and guide them around, because that's just being asinine. And isn't Blizzard the authority on SC2? They made it. Are they the authority on RTS games? I'm not prepared to answer that question with facts or proof, but judging from the success of their RTS portfolio, I am inclined to believe so. But as I stated before, they are not infallible. They've made mistakes on buffs/nerfs and had to revert them in following patches. Sure LoL is a fun game, and of course that's the appeal. And their devs are great at what they do, but that doesn't mean everything they do and say is the bible. But to state that if Riot does it, Blizzard should too is a fallacious argument. Game design isn't some hard and fast rule that publishers have to adhere to. Riot will make their decisions, and Blizzard will make theirs. As I mentioned before, I understand your argument. I read it. You've stated it time and time in many previous threads. You've mentioned League/Riot plenty of times. No need to write down your ironclad argument. Instead, I hope you would take the time to just play the game. But I doubt you would, because you've already made up your mind. edit: I believe right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it, and I think you should too, though it does require critical thinking instead of just defaulting to whoever you think the authority is I've never said anything about who is right or wrong, I just said I disagree. I never said you should agree with me just because I have more trust in Blizzard. You have your opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
Here's the thing, swarm hosts are quite easy to use as harass. They are extremely good at hit and run tactics, and mech style is very prone to hit and run. No one in their right mind would attack into a fortified mech base. That is suicide. So zerg's only resort is to use guerrilla tactics to eek out small advantages, until they have a sufficient force to take on the mech army. I've seen some use mutas to hit and run, but with a few well placed turrets, muta harass effectively is stopped. So zergs needs another option to harass. But remember, if zerg is going fast swarm hosts, there is no way they can get enough units to stop a banshee harass. And it shouldn't be too hard to make a few banshees if you scout swarmhosts. Banshees are harder to use than swarm hosts, but they are also much more effective, and way more versatile. As well, banshees easily handle swarmhosts if you manage to catch them. However, if it goes to the late game and the zerg has enough to afford swarmhosts and hydras, than you are absolutely right. You have a window of opportunity to use the banshees effectively. If you don't, that window closes and you will lose. By asking for swarmhosts to be more expensive, the only thing you are asking is for a larger window of opportunity. If that window is too small, than I would agree with you that swarmhosts needs to be nerfed. But I'm not sure yet if it is or isn't. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On November 25 2016 14:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I've read all your arguments, and that's why I've decided to reply now. I totally understand everything you've stated about the design of SC2. And I disagree with most of it. I agree games should be fun. I think SC2 is fun. It's also frustrating, but a game can be both. There is no reason why a game shouldn't be frustrating. Frustration is a challenge that many want to overcome. That feeling of accomplishment when you realize the solution to the frustration is the greatest feeling in the world. It makes me feel like I can do anything. And i've experienced that with SC2. That's where the fun comes in. When a game is just purely fun, with no challenge/frustration, it will become boring. If a game has the right balance of fun and frustration, it will become a good game. I feel SC2 has reached that balance. Sure sometimes it feels more frustating than fun, but that is the beauty of it. If a game is designed to remove frustration and increase fun, than it's audience are children. Because its children that can't handle the frustration of losing. A game that focus on only fun panders to players that can't take frustration. The fact of the matter is that SC2 is an incredibly hard game. No one here can dispute it. It's so hard that many don't find it fun to play. That is something Blizzard intentionally designed. You don't agree with them. I get it. No need to try to hook anyone by the nose and guide them around, because that's just being asinine. And isn't Blizzard the authority on SC2? They made it. Are they the authority on RTS games? I'm not prepared to answer that question with facts or proof, but judging from the success of their RTS portfolio, I am inclined to believe so. But as I stated before, they are not infallible. They've made mistakes on buffs/nerfs and had to revert them in following patches. Sure LoL is a fun game, and of course that's the appeal. And their devs are great at what they do, but that doesn't mean everything they do and say is the bible. But to state that if Riot does it, Blizzard should too is a fallacious argument. Game design isn't some hard and fast rule that publishers have to adhere to. Riot will make their decisions, and Blizzard will make theirs. As I mentioned before, I understand your argument. I read it. You've stated it time and time in many previous threads. You've mentioned League/Riot plenty of times. No need to write down your ironclad argument. Instead, I hope you would take the time to just play the game. But I doubt you would, because you've already made up your mind. edit: I've never said anything about who is right or wrong, I just said I disagree. I never said you should agree with me just because I have more trust in Blizzard. You have your opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise. I don't want to go into this too deeply, but this isn't really a matter of opinion. Good game design is a series of objective points that have been proven over and over. SC2 is in decline and is evidence of this. Anyway, the argument of authority is a fallacious argument, supposing that because who someone is makes their point automatically valid. It has nothing to do with who you trust and who you don't and everything to do with the arguments I've made, none of which you brought up, but that doesn't matter, I will fully flesh them out in my threads and hopefully you will respond to those, and not me. Because I don't matter, the ideas matter and someone else could easily repeat them and then you've have to perform character assassination on them too. Simply stating that you trust Blizzard more without addressing the arguments I've made and Blizzard has made is exactly what an argument of authority is. Briefly, the frustration piece. Frustration is necessary in good game design to achieve mastery (mastery being a good thing that is the ultimate goal, we want people to feel like they achieved something), but it should be minimized, and mastery should be the solution to frustration. For instance, as an LoL design blog points out, the Stone Award in Bayonetta, where you get laughed at by the game for barely making it through a level is a case that could be minimized, it is unnecessary and makes players frustrated. A case where there is frustration without mastery solving it is an ability that has a 95% chance of working. That 5% chance is really annoying and frustrating and serves no real purpose. Another example is how disease works in RTW2, it is utterly random, but I'll let Dr. Sane explain with a great example: Sadly SC2 is full of instances where you're put in situations you can do little about, and that has led SC2 down a bad path. It should feel good when you get past a certain point and master something and in many cases in SC2, it does. But SC2 can't be totally mastered, which is okay in itself, but when the top players are complaining the game is too hard to master, it might actually be too hard. And then mastery isn't the solution to frustration because it is too hard... so said frustration should be minimized. And it isn't being, and we know frustration like that pushes people away. And it wasn't always that way... TheDwf was right in Razzia of the Blizzsters, the game was getting too fast during the LOTV Beta. Control and skill contract with speed (he used speed Chess as an example) and thus mastery is increasingly out of reach. And mastery is the goal of any game. As for playing the game, I still actively play SC2, coop, 1vs1, and team games. You check my match history. I just used to play a lot more. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
And it wasn't always that way... TheDwf was right in Razzia of the Blizzsters, the game was getting too fast during the LOTV Beta. Control and skill contract with speed (he used speed Chess as an example) and thus mastery is increasingly out of reach. And mastery is the goal of any game. I don't agree that it makes sense to use speed as a general term that both includes movement and damage. Further, one should make a distingushing between abilitiy-damage and auto-attack damage. And then also divide that up in skillshot-ability damage and damage with lack of counterplay. And for auto-attacks, we should seperate between harass units and battleoriented damage. Point being that it doesn't make sense to say that all forms of speed is too fast. It must also be assessed on a case-by-case where the impact on micro interactions are assessed. Sadly SC2 is full of instances where you're put in situations you can do little about, and that has led SC2 down a bad path. It should feel good when you get past a certain point and master something and in many cases in SC2, it does. But SC2 can't be totally mastered, which is okay in itself, but when the top players are complaining the game is too hard to master, it might actually be too hard. I actually can't think of a single example here. Enlighten me. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 25 2016 16:50 BronzeKnee wrote: ... Sadly SC2 is full of instances where you're put in situations you can do little about, and that has led SC2 down a bad path. It should feel good when you get past a certain point and master something and in many cases in SC2, it does. But SC2 can't be totally mastered, which is okay in itself, but when the top players are complaining the game is too hard to master, it might actually be too hard. And then mastery isn't the solution to frustration because it is too hard... so said frustration should be minimized. And it isn't being, and we know frustration like that pushes people away. ... But this is excellent. This speaks to me. This is what I say to people, and what people outside of Starcraft forums say. When I'm frustrated I'm quitting, playing Rocket League or Dota or a non competitive game, and enjoying myself. I've heard a decent number of people (both players and personalities in the scene) say a competitive game isn't supposed to be fun. That is bullshit. This patch has done a lot to rectify the bad game design in ZvT. In 3.7 it went from the most iconic and engaging match up to the absolute worst. I'd take a day of ZvZs over playing a frustrat-athon defend defend defend get to tier 3 win. Didn't they learn in WoL (when I quit) that BL Infestor that no fun get to end game and win isn't enjoyable for either side? I have a lot of faith in this patch and future patches since they're recognizing that the mid game is where the most fun is. A match up shouldn't by default be a race to the late game for one side and another side doing everything to end the game before then. | ||
|
Ganseng
Russian Federation473 Posts
battlecruisers in tvz and tvp are not a joke now - that is a very good sign in itself =) | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On November 25 2016 16:50 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't want to go into this too deeply, but this isn't really a matter of opinion. Good game design is a series of objective points that have been proven over and over. SC2 is in decline and is evidence of this. Anyway, the argument of authority is a fallacious argument, supposing that because who someone is makes their point automatically valid. It has nothing to do with who you trust and who you don't and everything to do with the arguments I've made, none of which you brought up, but that doesn't matter, I will fully flesh them out in my threads and hopefully you will respond to those, and not me. Because I don't matter, the ideas matter and someone else could easily repeat them and then you've have to perform character assassination on them too. Simply stating that you trust Blizzard more without addressing the arguments I've made and Blizzard has made is exactly what an argument of authority is. Briefly, the frustration piece. Frustration is necessary in good game design to achieve mastery (mastery being a good thing that is the ultimate goal, we want people to feel like they achieved something), but it should be minimized, and mastery should be the solution to frustration. For instance, as an LoL design blog points out, the Stone Award in Bayonetta, where you get laughed at by the game for barely making it through a level is a case that could be minimized, it is unnecessary and makes players frustrated. A case where there is frustration without mastery solving it is an ability that has a 95% chance of working. That 5% chance is really annoying and frustrating and serves no real purpose. Another example is how disease works in RTW2, it is utterly random, but I'll let Dr. Sane explain with a great example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA&t=26m9s Sadly SC2 is full of instances where you're put in situations you can do little about, and that has led SC2 down a bad path. It should feel good when you get past a certain point and master something and in many cases in SC2, it does. But SC2 can't be totally mastered, which is okay in itself, but when the top players are complaining the game is too hard to master, it might actually be too hard. And then mastery isn't the solution to frustration because it is too hard... so said frustration should be minimized. And it isn't being, and we know frustration like that pushes people away. And it wasn't always that way... TheDwf was right in Razzia of the Blizzsters, the game was getting too fast during the LOTV Beta. Control and skill contract with speed (he used speed Chess as an example) and thus mastery is increasingly out of reach. And mastery is the goal of any game. As for playing the game, I still actively play SC2, coop, 1vs1, and team games. You check my match history. I just used to play a lot more. Oh but design is a matter of opinion. Sure there are some design aspects that many should adhere to, and in so doing a better product is the result. But at the end of the day, design isn't objective. It's subjective. I don't design videogames, but I do design websites. In class we were taught basic web design principles that are used by nearly all the big companies. So I used those principles with much smaller clients. And they didn't like it. They asked for changes that totally broke basic web design principles. I agree there are somethings a game should do to be successful, but as I said before its not a hard rule that developers and publishers must do. If they decide to break a principle, they do so knowingly. Blizzard is intentionally designing SC2 breaking certain aspects that you bring up. And I trust them for doing it. Will it be the immediate downfall of SC2? Perhaps, and if it is I will concede you were right. But I have confidence in Blizzard that they know what they are doing. I'm not appealing to authority here and I understand the points you've brought up in previous threads. However, if a publisher/developer is breaking basic design principles unknowingly, than that's a massive faux pas that might end in failure. I honestly think Blizzard knowingly breaks these design principles, and if so than its ok. About frustration, you bring up some excellent points. As I mentioned before, there should be a balance of frustration and fun. Too much frustration and people will quit because it feels futile to continue. Not enough frustration and people will quit because its too boring and easy to master. Our opinion here differs on the balance that SC2 strikes with frustration/fun. Many progamers have stated its too hard, and maybe it is too hard. However, as a spectator I like it hard (please don't take it out of context). In my opinion, this adds to the excitement of watching GSL or WCS. Imagine if the NBA lowered the height of the net to 8 feet and shrink the 3-point line by a foot? Basketball would be much easier to play, but than it will be so boring to watch. Everyone will be dunking and landing the 3-point with ease. And the truly great players couldn't distinguish themselves from the good players, because everyone can play at the same level. There would be less contention and excitement. You can find this example in so many sports. Take golf for instance. Every year golf course designers strive to make the greens harder and harder to get par, because players become better and better, especially in the Masters. However, they have to make sure a course doesn't delve into the realm of nearly impossible. So questions remain, is SC2 too hard that mastering it becomes nearly impossible? Is there a solution for mech to play against swarm hosts (because it SH seems to stop mech cold)? Is protoss' solution to mech too easy or too hard? If its too easy, PvT mech will return to aoe vs bio and Blizzard will have failed with this patch. If its too hard mech will need adjustments. Perhaps its somewhere in the middle, which would mean Blizzard partially succeeded with this patch. BronzeKnee, its more pleasant to discuss this with you when you aren't being a condescending asshole. I appeal to you to suppress your inner asshole. And in no way did I try to 'perform character assassination'. I did not in anyway use ad hominen. I might have been a bit snide in my comments, but I always try to approach your argument, not your attittude. If I did attack you, and not address your argument, I truly apologize. Lastly, I am happy you still play SC2. From your comments it seemed you've completely abandoned it already. I apologize for making that assumption. edit: I've edited this comment a dozen times for clarity, but this edit is because I didn't address something. Finding the solution is paramount for any game to be successful. However, finding solutions in SC2 isn't as apparent compared to other games and genres. And that adds to the beauty of SC2. In other games, the solution is given in either the game content (e.g. an npc gives you a clue to find the solution) or game engine (e.g. timing the jump over a chasm just right). Sometimes though, a game requires experimentation to discover the solution. That is SC2. Take MockHamil's problem with swarm hosts against his mech play. He is adamant that mech is stopped cold by SH. From my observations, he is right. If a zerg player uses swarm hosts to slow down a mech composition; weaken the fortification; and get a better economy, than the terran mech will be in a pickle that will likely end in a lot of broken tanks. Is there a solution for a terran mech to play against SH? If there isn't a solution, than did Blizzard intend for it? Was it there intention to make SH a clear counter to mech play? Honestly, I don't know these answers, because I'm not qualified enough. What if there is, it just takes the right decisions, but no one discovered the solutions. The thing about SC2 is that all the solutions aren't clearly defined, so it requires players to experiment to discover it. If Blizzard unknowingly created a situation with no solution, than a nerf/buff is required. If they knowingly created it, than it might be an indication that a player must change the situation (i.e. switch to bio if zerg goes SH). But we don't know any of these answers because we still need to experiment. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16647 Posts
right now, we're in the stage where Academies were $200 and larva generated too quickly. hopefully, the balance will be much better when qualifying for WCS begins in 2017 On November 25 2016 16:50 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm going to create a series of threads to educate and enlighten rather than have to listen to these fallacious arguments of authority that you and others have made over and over ("Blizzard is the authority on SC2, and you are not, therefore Blizzard must be right..." I believe right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it, and I think you should too, though it does require critical thinking instead of just defaulting to whoever you think the authority is). Blizzard's long term financial success is objective proof of their quality products. However, their best team is not working on RTS. The genre never has generated enough profit for any company to justify Blizzard moving its best talent onto an RTS game. in every forum of all 6 franchises is a group of experts claiming the Blizz franchise they are discussing is horribly designed and the other 5 franchises design quality ranges from average to great in quality. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On November 25 2016 19:11 Hider wrote: I don't agree that it makes sense to use speed as a general term that both includes movement and damage. Further, one should make a distingushing between abilitiy-damage and auto-attack damage. And then also divide that up in skillshot-ability damage and damage with lack of counterplay. And for auto-attacks, we should seperate between harass units and battleoriented damage. Point being that it doesn't make sense to say that all forms of speed is too fast. It must also be assessed on a case-by-case where the impact on micro interactions are assessed. I actually can't think of a single example here. Enlighten me. Hider, mate, don't be a dick to BronzeKnee, you know what he means, armies clumping increases Army DPS density, which also means that armies die faster than otherwise, and because units are more clumped a greater amount of them can easily be caught by a stray fungal or Disruptor shot increasing the game's volatility. All of that you know, don't be obtuse on purpose. Game's too volatile, be it because lotv economy, pathing, unit design, unit balancing. Yeah, some people might enjoy the volatility, but volatility is stressing on multiplayer game, and most people don't enjoy that when they are thinking of "playing video games". Yet the SC2 E-Sport ecosystem kinda needs said people. | ||
| ||
