|
On May 13 2017 20:29 Foxxan wrote:
What about tactics? Mindgames doesnt have to be a strategy either, it can be a tactic.
English isn't my native langage, but "tactic" and "strategy" are synonyms I think, the definition of tactic being :
"An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."
On May 13 2017 20:29 Foxxan wrote:
You say subjective, but i feel that word is a bad word because it can be used anytime and we all know we are humans and every opinion is already set. One opinion might be that ONE STRATEGY AND ONE UNIT COMPOSITION IS FUN AND GOOD. If the game have variation or you have more depth in the tactics THATS BAD:
You see how silly it really is. Yes it is subjective, but opinions value matters alot. I would bet that person above with that opinion has his mental mind blocked in some way. The brain likes to use all its brain pretty much. This is a fact. Its not consructive or fun to look into the wall for several minutes straight BUT SOMEONE WITH THE SUBJECTIVE OPINION WILL SAY that he enjoys it and its fun.
We also have the lack of knowledge and imagination department. People who dont think to much about design or/and what a rts game should look like, they might think of sc2 as a really great game and that game sets the standard.
Yes, saying everything is subjective is pointing out the obvious. What I meant was that diversity of plays was the most generally enjoyed thing, transcending personal subjectivities. Near everyone likes diversity.
On May 13 2017 20:29 Foxxan wrote:
Having a set unit composition and when they do fight each other its over really fast. Is a bad standard.
But lets go a bit deeper.
So we have all these units and in combat, they pretty much do one part and one part only in general. This is the standard in sc2.
I would like a game which has more open tactics and executions.
One game i might decide that my zealots will attack the hydras behind the roaches every single time.
While another game i might decide to simple attack the roaches, or another game i might decide to flank every game.
We dont see this in sc2. Key word here is concistent and general approach. I dont care if we see once in a while. I want a game where you as a player can decide how you want to approach fights without them ending in a matter of seconds so therefore makes more moves possible for all players involved in the fight.
This whole rock paper scissor is another standard set. Its garbage in my "subjective" opinion.
When one side can micro alot while the other cant its also something i dont want in a standard rts game.
Look at any sport irl or any martial art, you do interract with your opinion and there are little to no hardcounters.
Right? What is the point if we look from the brains perspective if you have little to no interraction with your opponent? Why do that thing in the first place if thats the case?
Skill comes from interraction, and fun comes from interraction.
When you talk to someone you dont talk 100%, right? You go back and forth. Even new born babies do that ffs.
So this subjective opinion is bullshit in the grand scheme of things.
A game where you open marine/marauder vs gateway pressure opening:
Terran fears zealots/sentries, play passive dont go out on the map. Just defend.
When stim is done, and the numbers increase protoss will fear you and decide to go home and defend.
Sc2 has set the stnadard very low and its hard for people to understand that, i dont blame them either but following those opinions isnt wise.
I think I get what you're meaning. If I sum up, it'd be "monolithic unit usage is boring". And I do agree.
First, this has a lot to do with the "active ability" problem in SC2. You see, active abilities often mean there is one very monolithic "best way" to use an ability. You'll always want to use EMPs on HTs if you can. You'll always want to hit siege tanks if you can with ravager biles.
But second, the true issue is that varied units interaction comes mainly from varied unit compositions. If you have 30 marines 4 medivacs 2 siege tanks versus 40 lings 10 banes 6 mutas all the time at a certain point in TvZ, you'll always have the same "ideal" unit interaction, because there'll be only one ideal way to micro your units.
Varied unit interactions comes from the viability of varied compositions. And that's what I like with mech, you can build a lot of different compositions that work very differently : if you go for mine heavy comps in TvP against chargelots, the interactions are very different compared to going hellbat heavy.
The general issue with SC2 on this matter is that active abilities and hard counters are impacting very negatively diversity, I think. I don't think the issue is with how fast battles happen, most of the time.
|
|
|
On May 13 2017 21:01 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 20:29 Foxxan wrote:
What about tactics? Mindgames doesnt have to be a strategy either, it can be a tactic. English isn't my native langage, but "tactic" and "strategy" are synonyms I think
They're not really synonyms, no.
|
|
|
The general issue with SC2 on this matter is that active abilities and hard counters are impacting very negatively diversity, I think. Which in turn doesn't allow a lot of different units interactions, because there's not a lot of units to play with. I don't think the issue is with how fast battles happen, most of the time.
Not only does it impact diversity, it also impacts tactics and most likely strategies by a big margin. What it also do is makes the interractions in the game unit vs unit wise bad.
Now i do believe active abilities can have a big depth if done different and with a more specific goal, in sc2 it does neither. You mentioned emp vs hightemplar, this is a very lame one. I dont know if i know it 100% why, but one big reason is most likely because there isnt many moves involved and its not very dynamic either.
The spells also have such a huge effect towards each other(emp, feedback) that its a break or hit.
But even so, sc2 doesnt have GOOD unit interractions. If they had, i would probably play the game even with a bad diversity.
Thats the core problem of a rts game in my mind by far, the unit interractions are the key to the game.
Battles happening fast is a issue because if it ends really fast, it means players cant do many moves and therefore the whole interraction becomes close to none-existent. But yes, its a differnence between battles ending fast and units dying fast. You can have many units for both players that die fast as long as the battle doesnt end.
Marines vs hightemplars for example, marines die fast here and storm kills many marines. So it kills the battle.
Another aspect with this whole rock-paper-scissor is aoe initself. Its not a good mechanic since it kills the interraction initself. But oh well, perhaps it can be a good mechanic, havent thought to much about it actually.
This whole rts-genre needs to be done very different even so, and with a very different goal aswell.
Like, who the hell want to play a game with a 10-15min uptime without much happening one bit? You are in your base camping. People that enjoy and think this is a good mechanic doesnt have much imagination.. Or they simple doesnt imaginate.
|
Y'all seem to want a different game, instead of tweaking SC2.
|
On May 13 2017 22:28 InfCereal wrote:
Y'all seem to want a different game, instead of tweaking SC2.
Blizzard aint gonna tweak it around so the only option is to have a new rts.
|
On May 13 2017 22:32 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 22:28 InfCereal wrote:
Y'all seem to want a different game, instead of tweaking SC2.
Blizzard aint gonna tweak it around so the only option is to have a new rts.
Kind of makes it irrelevant to the may 4th feedback, no?
|
Not only does it impact diversity, it also impacts tactics and most likely strategies by a big margin. What it also do is makes the interractions in the game unit vs unit wise bad.
This is the truth, I'm not trying to start a flame way by this next statement for the love of God but I don't really have another example...
Sigh...
Broodwar units were better designed and had better interactions with eachother because the units didn't really on active abilities to be powerful, thereby making them easier to balance and easier to understand.
Look at Void Prisms? The unit completely sucks but then it activates it's ability and BAM, strong as hell for zero extra skill or creativity.Then when it's activated, the Corruptors move away, then when the ability goes away, the Corruptors move back in. It's a very binary, predicatable response that doesn't really give off the impression of "skill" or micro. (i.e. their ability prevents them from being buffed outside of a ground up overhaul)
Stalkers are a great example, because they are a weak unit with a strong ability. Blink is powerful, no getting around it, we've had entire Protoss metagames centered around it with all ins, macro, cheese, you name it. After the Stalkers Zerg counters have been heavily buffed (Hydras, Lurkers, even Ravagers can fight them straight up fairly well) the Stalker never got buffed because with Blink on it, it would be very powerful if they were also straight up front line fighters (i.e. Stalkers can never truly be buffed with Blink in the game)
Stalkers shouldn't even need blink in the first place, they are already fast with very little delay in their acceleration, this makes them quick and easy (more like responsive) to micro. Would people rather have a weak Stalker whos power skyrockets in the mid game because of Blink but then falls off immediately or is never used because the counters are too strong? Or would people rather have a Stalker that can actually not get mowed down by med game bio/Hydralisk armies whos entire balance isn't held back by having *gasp* an activated ability. (i.e. Adepts can never truly be buffed with Transfer in the game)
It's just like the Adept. It doesnt even need Shade, thats just one more gimmicky ability that prevents good balance and design decisions because if the Adept is too good at everything, having Shade on top just makes it OP. If Adepts were say, just faster and easier to micro like Stalkers and Transfer was removed, they could be powerful mid range fighters whos job was to support firepower for Zealots while buffering for Stalkers.
Instead, active ability here to ruin the day once again, the Adept can only be ever so slightly nerfed or tweaked because with Transfer being in the game, one wrong balance patch and the unit is either uselessly weak or overpowered. Moral of the post? I completely agree with you guys, active abilities are ruining the game and Protoss in particular. The current balance team would be wise to spend this entire year toning them down. After that, in 2018 we may be in a position to have a new major patch and by that time, we can phase out all but the best designed of active abilities.
|
On May 13 2017 04:22 Suchbalancemuchwow wrote:
For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
the people i know in Silver through Platinum don't all-in every game and they don't face all-ins by their opponents every game.
On May 13 2017 06:30 Suchbalancemuchwow wrote:
Oh well, your free to love the game as it is, I'm just saying that it's not casual friendly that's all. Ironically nor are you guys.
Guess I'll just be rational and make this my last post, clearly scrubs aren't wanted.
the SC2 game pace more closely resembles C&C than it did from 2010 to 2014. lots of scrubs and noobs and casuals enjoy C&C's game pace and the fact that you are fighting for your life 90 seconds into the game. SC2 is still slower paced than RA3 and Kane's Wrath.
On May 14 2017 01:00 jpg06051992 wrote: The new balance team would be wise to spend this entire year toning them down. After that, in 2018 we may be in a position to have a new major patch and by that time, we can phase out all but the best designed of active abilities.
when was a new balance team announced?
On May 14 2017 01:00 jpg06051992 wrote:
Stalkers are a great example, because they are a weak unit with a strong ability. Blink is powerful,
the Stalker and Blink have been around since 2007. If you don't like the Stalker with the Blink ability you probably don't like Blizzard's approach to SC2 in general. With so many ex-C&Cers on the RTS team SC2 has moved more and more towards a C&C style of RTS and further away from the Brood War style.
|
when was a new balance team announced?
Sigh, okay Jimmy, I'll edit it to the CURRENT balance team because I know not a singular post about the balance team escapes your notice, thank you for pointing that out.
the Stalker and Blink have been around since 2007. If you don't like the Stalker with the Blink ability you probably don't like Blizzard's approach to SC2 in general.
I'm going to politely ask you to stop putting words in my mouth because tbh you're one of the only posters on here who legitimately pisses me off. Not once did I say that I didn't like the unit or the ability just because I said the unit is weak and the ability is strong. I said that the Stalker is a good example of a unit that is held back from good balance by having a strong activated ability instead of just good raw stats. Saying that, it's probably one of the best designed in the game, just like stim. Theres definitely well designed abilities (stim, blink) and theres bad ones (Transfer, Revelation, Neural Parasite)
|
Note that i do believe abilities can work great, make for great interractions but the way blizzard do it is not the way to go. So abilites initself isnt wrong or bad, its the implementation that matters here. But yes.
Thing is, we do have some potential "cool" abilities in terran with the transform but blizzard decides to ignore that. Just wanted to point that out.
Not once did I say that I didn't like the unit or the ability just because I said the unit is weak and the ability is strong. I said that the Stalker is a good example of a unit that is held back from good balance by having a strong activated ability instead of just good raw stats. Saying that, it's probably one of the best designed in the game, just like stim. Theres definitely well designed abilities (stim, blink) and theres bad ones (Transfer, Revelation, Neural Parasite)
You dont find blink binary to an extent? The micro blink provides is pretty much one-sided, but thats a problem with sc2 on the whole actually.
|
On May 14 2017 05:40 Foxxan wrote:Note that i do believe abilities can work great, make for great interractions but the way blizzard do it is not the way to go. So abilites initself isnt wrong or bad, its the implementation that matters here. But yes. Thing is, we do have some potential "cool" abilities in terran with the transform but blizzard decides to ignore that. Just wanted to point that out. Show nested quote +Not once did I say that I didn't like the unit or the ability just because I said the unit is weak and the ability is strong. I said that the Stalker is a good example of a unit that is held back from good balance by having a strong activated ability instead of just good raw stats. Saying that, it's probably one of the best designed in the game, just like stim. Theres definitely well designed abilities (stim, blink) and theres bad ones (Transfer, Revelation, Neural Parasite) You dont find blink binary to an extent? The micro blink provides is pretty much one-sided, but thats a problem with sc2 on the whole actually.
I consider Blink to be a bit more multi faceted then say...Zealot Charge or Phoenix insta Muta counter upgrade because Blink allows you to attack, re position for defense, chase down fleeing opponents, micro them back to make wounded Stalkers last longer (also all of this really allows superior Protoss players to show off their skills) while Charge just makes Zealots....charge lol the unit micro manages itself, just like the Phoenix upgrade doesn't really let Phoenix do anything besides kill Mutalisks better.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by binary, if so apologies lol I just consider abilities that allow you to
- attack
- Defend
- Micro for increased survival
Things like, stim, burrow movement, Blink, DT blink, even Psionic Transfer is a well designed ability, it's just so strong on a unit that is already a powerful front line fighter so naturally balance problems arose.
Abilities like Prismatic Alignment, Corrosive Bile, Zealot Charge, not so much, I consider inferior.
|
So do you considder blink a good ability overall or good if we compare it to other abilties in sc2? Just curious.
|
The problem with the Thor armour increase is that it does not really improve Thors where it is needed.
Thors are currently useless in TvT and TvP but balanced in TvZ. Increasing Thor armour by 1 make them better vs zerglings but they will still not do their job vs air units in TvT and TvP.
It would be better to give Thors High Impact Payload mode bonus damage vs mechanical. That way Thors becomes useful against Air in TvT and TvP without making them stronger in TvZ since they already are balanced in that matchup.
|
On May 15 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote:
The problem with the Thor armour increase is that it does not really improve Thors where it is needed.
Thors are currently useless in TvT and TvP but balanced in TvZ. Increasing Thor armour by 1 make them better vs zerglings but they will still not do their job vs air units in TvT and TvP.
It would be better to give Thors High Impact Payload mode bonus damage vs mechanical. That way Thors becomes useful against Air in TvT and TvP without making them stronger in TvZ since they already are balanced in that matchup.
Well, your not far off, but the problem in TvP for the thor is it's range against air before it's actual damage. And vs air in TvT they can't really deal with battlecruisers, but ravens> battlecruisers anyway. And even if you buffed the thor's damage x2 against ravens they'd still trade against thors np. I wouldn't say that thors need a buff against liberators vikings and banshee's which that mechanical extra damage would do.
I guess you could make it work if you make it an upgrade on the factory tech lab that increases their range and also their damage vs mechanical that unlocks after building the fusion core. That way you could upgrade your thors to deal with the lategame air stuff P and T throws at mech armies.
Or you could give cyclones a comparable lategame upgrade so they can actually deal with air in lategame. That would actually give people a reason to build cyclones in the lategame too.
|
On May 14 2017 07:05 Foxxan wrote:
So do you considder blink a good ability overall or good if we compare it to other abilties in sc2? Just curious.
it's exactly like this in my mind, blink is one of the better abilities in SC2 but it's actually not a good ability for the reasons you mentioned, that's why I don't play SC2. If the stalker didn't have blink it would be a much more interesting unit involving much more micro, tactics and ultimately strategy.
|
On May 14 2017 04:52 jpg06051992 wrote: tbh you're one of the only posters on here who legitimately pisses me off.
its not my job to anticipate what your emotional responses may or may not be to my posts.
On May 14 2017 04:52 jpg06051992 wrote:
I said that the Stalker is a good example of a unit that is held back from good balance by having a strong activated ability instead of just good raw stats.
you're splitting hairs. its had that ability since 2007 and they've decided to balance it with that strong activated ability since 2007. that unit has been through Pardo, Browder, Kim and not the new Lead Multiplayer Designer "The Masked Superstar". i don't see it changing.
if they remove Blink and buff the Stalker's stats it becomes a Dragoon with a new skin.
On May 15 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote:
Thors are currently useless in TvT and TvP but balanced in TvZ. Increasing Thor armour by 1 make them better vs zerglings but they will still not do their job vs air units in TvT and TvP.
it'll help the Thor against Marines and it'll shave 2 damage off of Zealots because they use 2 psi blade strikes of 8 damage each. so the buff helps the Thor against all 3 races "most primitive" units.
|
I'm too lazy to search where did the discussion towards blink started (from a feedback update) but i'll give my 2 cents anyhow.
Blink as an ability is ojectively immensely overpowered, but it all depends on the unit. The stalker has objectively trash stats, to compensate for this. It has good range and a good health pool for the very early game, but because LOTV forces mid game to happen after 2 minutes it's kinda irrelevant. Appart from that, stalkers are worthless stats-wise.
I had issues with blink in the past, but not because of the ability in itself. Mainly because there wasn't enough answers to stalkers. When tanks dealt only 50 dmg to stalkers, you could litterally shut down mech play with only blink stalkers. Seriously. In HOTS, players like Lilbow mastered the style where you simply need +2 stalkers and few sentries to win the matchup. The problem with blink was that there wasn't a lot of units that could prevent protoss from massing only stalkers.
Now, in LOTV, stalkers and blink stalkers are in a fine state. And it's not a bad design in itself to have a unit that's weak stats-wise but with an overpowered ability. The HUGE misstake of the dev team was to introduce another unit that worked the same way (adept). And because of that protoss is very hard to balance without relying on gimmicks.
If the adept was stronger in a frontal fight but saw his shade hugely nerfed, this issue would be solved.
|
On May 15 2017 08:24 JackONeill wrote:
And because of that protoss is very hard to balance without relying on gimmicks. If the adept was stronger in a frontal fight but saw his shade hugely nerfed, this issue would be solved.
however they nerf the Adept or buff teh Zealot... i'd just like to see Blizzard adjust the unit(s) so that we see more Zealots than Adepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
