|
One can say that the spells itself weren't well designed (like instantly hitting fungal), but at the same time i also think that spells should be really strong because it's fun to use when it's strong.
I don't think think we should think of abilities to be strong/weak per se. Rather they should feel rewarding to land a good ability, and it should have a proper counterplay.
I would much rather have that instead of goign the ravager route where the spell itself is incredibl bad but you build lots of ravagers and the cd is really low. That interaction is imo actually one of the worst interactions in the game from a fun perspective.
It reminds me of when TLO made his mod and reduced the damage of ravager skillshot - That change shows he had no idea what he was doing from a game-design perspective because the Ravager skillshot should - if anything - do more damage with increased CD.
I do agree that casting abilties shouldn't be the main micro you do. I think movement of units should be the main micro you make in every fight, and casting abilities should reward more movement (from the opponent). Most abilities should therefore be skillshots and I also like when you have indicators of where an ability will land.
Another change blizzard easily could make to make ability-spamming less with spellcasters is to set a lower maxmimum energy of each spellcaster while increasing its energy regeneration. This means an infestor can only cast 1 fungal per battle but will regenerate faster. When it comes to spamming infestors, you could increase its relative supply value (in relation to other units), hence make having 10 infestors a lot less attractive.
You could also make Fungal last over 5-7 seconds making spamming it less valueable (with first 4 seconds being root and the last 3 seconds being damage only)
|
Shield battery hype I guess? Overall I like the changes. Not sure about balance but certainly it is adding more fun to the game in my opinion.
|
On September 15 2017 00:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +One can say that the spells itself weren't well designed (like instantly hitting fungal), but at the same time i also think that spells should be really strong because it's fun to use when it's strong. I don't think think we should think of abilities to be strong/weak per se. Rather they should feel rewarding to land a good ability, and it should have a proper counterplay. Show nested quote +I would much rather have that instead of goign the ravager route where the spell itself is incredibl bad but you build lots of ravagers and the cd is really low. That interaction is imo actually one of the worst interactions in the game from a fun perspective. It reminds me of when TLO made his mod and reduced the damage of ravager skillshot - That change shows he had no idea what he was doing from a game-design perspective because the Ravager skillshot should - if anything - do more damage with increased CD. I do agree that casting abilties shouldn't be the main micro you do. I think movement of units should be the main micro you make in every fight, and casting abilities should reward more movement (from the opponent). Most abilities should therefore be skillshots and I also like when you have indicators of where an ability will land. Another change blizzard easily could make to make ability-spamming less with spellcasters is to set a lower maxmimum energy of each spellcaster while increasing its energy regeneration. This means an infestor can only cast 1 fungal per battle but will regenerate faster. When it comes to spamming infestors, you could increase its relative supply value (in relation to other units), hence making having 10 infestors a lot less attractive. You could also make Fungal last over 5-7 seconds making spamming it less valueable (with only seconds being root and the last 3 seconds being damage only)
Oh sure i just mentioned strength because usually something perceived as strong might feel more rewarding to use 
So if we nerf a spell so much that it's only really good when you have multiple casters which can spam it, i think there might be a problem with it.
About skillshots: While i see where you are coming from i am not 100% sure if i agree with that in the context of a macro oriented rts game tbh. This works fine in mobas where all your attention is on that one hero, in starcraft it's not as easily to assume that it gives the interactions which are most fun. Like i will be honest, fungal being a skillshot now didn't do much in that regard i think. Though i agree that there should be counterplay if possible.
I like your suggestions on how to tackle the spamming, at least on the first glance it looks like a decent solution to the problem. Though i am not sure if lower max energy would already be enough tbh. Like even if you only can cast one ability per battle per caster, if you get enough to cast X amount of time then it's no problem. You wanna change the supply to make it less attractive that way and that surely would help but it largely depends on the interactions and how valuable say 8 fungals per battle would be.
Personally i think a more fundamental mechanical solution would be better (so changing how smartcasting works). How exactly? I don't know. Especially because people really like how smartcasting operates now (at least they say so, i think people didn't really think about it / experience alternatives)
On September 15 2017 00:12 Yiome wrote:
Shield battery hype I guess? Overall I like the changes. Not sure about balance but certainly it is adding more fun to the game in my opinion.
It's pretty much useless in its current iteration. I actually think whatever blizzard comes up with here will always feel like a bandaid solution. I like that the msc is gone simply because in essence you couldn't seperate yourself with pylon canon defense and that was bad. But the new things will still feel out of place no matter what i think. Other parts of the game create this problem and these things would need to be changed (for example the oracle)
|
Like i will be honest, fungal being a skillshot now didn't do much in that regard i think.
Fungal still isn't a proper skillshot in the sense you can't dodge it after seeing the projectile being casted. However, it still had a significant effect in the sense that you get more time to split up your units after you see the Infestor that is 10 range away. Previously that was like an "oh shit --> GG moment".
The difference between skillshots in MOBAs and RTS should be that the latter rewards splitting while the former rewards reaction/predicting. Thus, projectiles should be much slower in RTS + we need indicators. If there are no indicators for where the skillshot will land, the cast delay/projectile speed needs to be slower (ceteris paribus).
For the ravager, I would argue they went too far. I think you have too much time to dodge it - especially given how low the AOE + damage is. It needs to feel valuable and skillbased to dodge a skillshot rather than something you "just do".
Perhaps Blizzard think they need to make each skillshot have completely unique numbers, but I don't think you can do that. From having done many hours of testing in the editor, there is a strict relationship between the following variables that needs to be maintained:
(a) AOE radius
(b) delay/projectile speed
(c) Indicator
you can change one of the variables a bit, but then one of the other variables must be increased/reduced. E.g. if you reduce the AOE radius, projectile speed should probably be increased. If you have no indicator, then either AOE radius or projectile speed should be lower.
Without being true to this relationship, skillshots feel shitty and unfortunately that is true for the vast majority of the abilities in Sc2.
|
Another topic, but I don't think Zerg should have two damage-based skillshots in Fungal and the Ravager, and I hate the whole "cast fungal to trap + Corrosive Bile on top of units". Synergy between different abilities belong in a moba - not in a game that wants movement based micro.
As I see it, you should make Corrosive Bile an actual skillshot that has a decent chance to land on units (plus being less spamable) without enemy units being immobilized by Fungal. Hence there is no synergy between Infestors and Ravagers.
And Fungal should then become something else (in my ideal game, you have a lot of reworks everywhere which opens up a specific unique role for fungal).
Generally speaking, each battle should contain as few different spellcasters as possible making spellcaster casting more of a supportive-thing rather than having players spend their time tabbing through control groups casting abilities.
|
Personally i think a more fundamental mechanical solution would be better (so changing how smartcasting works). How exactly? I don't know. Especially because people really like how smartcasting operates now (at least they say so, i think people didn't really think about it / experience alternatives)
This reminds me - Why don't we have MOBA smart casting where you don't need to left click to cast an ability? It's in HOTS so shouldn't be hard to implement into SC2. That would just make ability-casting slightly simpler in Sc2.
I like that the msc is gone simply because in essence you couldn't seperate yourself with pylon canon defense and that was bad
Would photon overcharge on pylons be so bad now that you have an oportunity cost on the nexus? Surely some would be annoyed by it still, but it just seems pointless to spend so much time trying to look for an ideal solution when there probably isn't any.
Photon overcharge on python works well to defend early game aggression and allow protoss to take expansions and tech - It does its job!
If I was a game-designer my focus would be on unit-to-unit interactions and adding strategic diversity. Not on adding new shield battery buildings which probably are never gonna feel great anyway.
. Like even if you only can cast one ability per battle per caster, if you get enough to cast X amount of time then it's no problem.
And that's fine. Casting 2-3 abilities at the start of the battle --> Moving units around for 20-30 seconds --> Casting a few more abilties = Feels great.
What we see atm is more like: Cast 5-10 abilities at the start of the battle --> Do nothing for 1 minute --> Cast 5-10 abilities.
A higher regeneration + lower max energy gives a better rotation between unit movement and ability casting.
|
On September 15 2017 00:05 Hider wrote:
It reminds me of when TLO made his mod and reduced the damage of ravager skillshot - That change shows he had no idea what he was doing from a game-design perspective because the Ravager skillshot should - if anything - do more damage with increased CD.
u need to provide more context to claim he has "no idea what he is doing from a game design perspective".
his change may have been a wrong move.. who knows.... but your claim is off base without more context.
does your claim imply everything TLO says about game design is meaningless?
|
u need to provide more context to claim he has "no idea what he is doing from a game design perspective".
his change may have been a wrong move.. who knows.... but your claim is off base without more context.
Specifically when it comes to designing (damage) abilities, TLO has no idea what he is doing.
|
Why doesn't the balance team just keep it ismple and bring back winfestors the other two races have gotten alot stronger since wol. You don't know if winfestors will be winfestors again?
|
what bothers me (and is a nice thing to experiment with anyways) is that Blizzard tries to keep zerg antiair on the ground, helped by a caster.
i would like to have a zerg composition that performs fairly ok against an a-move mothership+carrier+archon+zealot army.
what i have on my mind is to have slowed units take +2 dmg, and have the corruptor's attack a slight slow effect (-10% speed, not more, same duration as the attack cooldown). so a few corruptors + hydra army would be able to effectively counter air.
i think the following changes would be neccessary/nice as well:
- reducing corruptor damage by 2 (maybe 3), so a pure corruptor army would not kill faster, but with the slight slow effect units like mass oracles would not be able to get away so easily.
- buffing ultra armor back to 8, marauder+concussive+marines would do +1 dmg to slowed ultras compared to the live version)
- ghosts attacks would also have a slight (10%) slow effect.
- remove infested marines
|
On September 15 2017 01:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Personally i think a more fundamental mechanical solution would be better (so changing how smartcasting works). How exactly? I don't know. Especially because people really like how smartcasting operates now (at least they say so, i think people didn't really think about it / experience alternatives) This reminds me - Why don't we have MOBA smart casting where you don't need to left click to cast an ability? It's in HOTS so shouldn't be hard to implement into SC2. That would just make ability-casting slightly simpler in Sc2. Show nested quote +I like that the msc is gone simply because in essence you couldn't seperate yourself with pylon canon defense and that was bad Would photon overcharge on pylons be so bad now that you have an oportunity cost on the nexus? Surely some would be annoyed by it still, but it just seems pointless to spend so much time trying to look for an ideal solution when there probably isn't any. Photon overcharge on python works well to defend early game aggression and allow protoss to take expansions and tech - It does its job! If I was a game-designer my focus would be on unit-to-unit interactions and adding strategic diversity. Not on adding new shield battery buildings which probably are never gonna feel great anyway. Show nested quote +. Like even if you only can cast one ability per battle per caster, if you get enough to cast X amount of time then it's no problem. And that's fine. Casting 2-3 abilities at the start of the battle --> Moving units around for 20-30 seconds --> Casting a few more abilties = Feels great. What we see atm is more like: Cast 5-10 abilities at the start of the battle --> Do nothing for 1 minute --> Cast 5-10 abilities. A higher regeneration + lower max energy gives a better rotation between unit movement and ability casting.
Well that's the thing though, photon overcharge doesn't create fun unit interactions. That's why i don't like it. If you simply have the pylon in place and your attention there you cast the spell and that's it. There is no difference between me doing that or Neeb doing it. I think that's a problem because it's sucha huge part of protoss gameplay. It works balance wise but it's not fun at all.
About spells: Well sure if it works out like you say then it would be ideal. But let's look at HTS for example. Even in progames there will be the point where the toss has a lot of hts and he simply spams the storms durign the engagement.
You want to increase the supply so there would be less hts + make sure each ht can only cast one storm. I simply question if that would be enough. It certainly would help a ton but there is also the possibility that it would simply nerf the ht in a way where a low amount of casters would simply not be good at all.
I completely agree that spellcasting should be a supportive thing, i like how spellcasting is handled in bw tbh. But the whole game has a completely different pace so it's hard to compare.
|
On September 14 2017 21:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:i'm glad to see Blizzard is willing to experiment with the Shield Battery. There are so many ways to adjust the strength and durability of the Shield Battery i'm confident they can tweak its stats to make it a balanced part of the game. Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 18:45 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 14 2017 18:38 Jenia6109 wrote:
Glad that Entangle is gone... It was an attempt to introduce Warcraft 3 type abilities to a game so fundamentally different from Warcraft 3. Damn right it's good to have it gone. yep, entangle didn't work. it is also good to give Blizzard the creative freedom to experiment and fail on certain initiatives. you can't make an ambitious game with amazing stuff and have zero failures along the way. the only way to never fail is to take zero risks.. and that's boring.
The more Blizzard changes the game, the more original input they have, the more they have the creative freedom to experiment with bold changes, the more ambitious they are... the worse the game gets because it diverges from the Brood War template. The SC2 design team has been uninspiring for as long as I can remember, the best thing in general is for them to not touch the game.
This is so frustrating about reading your sort of apologetics: Blizzard fails, then you compliment them for trying. How about they just not fail? Why, as a player would you identify so strongly with the developers that you applaud them for trying and failing. It is kinda like being a class traitor, to be honest. And it is not just you, this is endemic in the community: people care so much about maintaining a happy, constructive working relationship with Blizzard, and being good consumers who won't question the (amazing, talented, hard-working etc.) developers and who are loyal to the Blizzard brand (oh, have to play Heroes instead of LoL because Blizzard made it). even if you are never listened to and even if every new Blizzard project is more generic and dumbed down than before.
The original Starcraft was created by a handful of people almost all of whom are no longer with the company, no longer involved in game design and so on. It is now a corporate entity called Blizzard, only nominally identifiable with them, which owns and controls the Starcraft franchise. That is how it works legally, fine, and it has certain advantages in terms of stability and production values, but as a gamer you can at least recognize this situation does not always benefit you. That doesn't mean you have to always be cynical and critical, but being a one-note corporate fanboy is certainly going too far in the other direction. You have to remain independent and conscious that Blizzard does not have a right to your loyalty.
|
Well that's the thing though, photon overcharge doesn't create fun unit interactions. That's why i don't like it. If you simply have the pylon in place and your attention there you cast the spell and that's it.
It definitely doesn't but it creates early game stability which I weight higher.
Generally speaking I prefer 3+ bases vs 3+ bases rather than 1-2 base timings. When on 1-2 bases I think lower risk/lower reward harass aggression provides for a more sound gameplay than timing attacks. A pylon that costs energy to activate would be a more effective tool against an all in/timing than light harass.
Anyway, I am not saying there doesn't exist some type of solution that could be better, but I don't think the benefits to the overall gameplay would be that significant. And I definitely do not trust blizzard to figure out this perfect solution.
Even in progames there will be the point where the toss has a lot of hts and he simply spams the storms durign the engagement.
You want to increase the supply so there would be less hts + make sure each ht can only cast one storm.
I think HT gameplay is generally fun to play against and use so I would use that as an example of one of the more succesful abilities in the game.
One type of new type of unit interaction I imagine in my ideal version of Sc2 is anti-spellcasters which likely would address the issue you have. Imagine the following changes:
1. All ability casters receive a new armor type.
2. Each race gets one ability (too one of the existing spellcasters) that deal bonus damage/one shots other ability-casters. E.g. Fungal Growth does 0 damage to normal units but 150 damage over 6 seconds to ability-casters. This gives Fungal growth a completely unique role and Corrosive Bile can now be rebalanced to become a more reliable skill-shot.
This provides a a strategic counteroption to massing spellcasters. Thus suddenly having 10+ HTs is can be a big vulnerability where as 2-5 HTs is the more solid option. The same concept can be applied to Ravagers, Ghosts, Ravents etc.
(Remember to also think of this change along with a reduction in projectile speed adding for more countermicro)
|
On September 15 2017 04:52 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 21:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:i'm glad to see Blizzard is willing to experiment with the Shield Battery. There are so many ways to adjust the strength and durability of the Shield Battery i'm confident they can tweak its stats to make it a balanced part of the game. On September 14 2017 18:45 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 14 2017 18:38 Jenia6109 wrote:
Glad that Entangle is gone... It was an attempt to introduce Warcraft 3 type abilities to a game so fundamentally different from Warcraft 3. Damn right it's good to have it gone. yep, entangle didn't work. it is also good to give Blizzard the creative freedom to experiment and fail on certain initiatives. you can't make an ambitious game with amazing stuff and have zero failures along the way. the only way to never fail is to take zero risks.. and that's boring. The more Blizzard changes the game, the more original input they have, the more they have the creative freedom to experiment with bold changes, the more ambitious they are... the worse the game gets because it diverges from the Brood War template. The SC2 design team has been uninspiring for as long as I can remember, the best thing in general is for them to not touch the game. This is so frustrating about reading your sort of apologetics: Blizzard fails, then you compliment them for trying. How about they just not fail? Why, as a player would you identify so strongly with the developers that you applaud them for trying and failing. It is kinda like being a class traitor, to be honest. And it is not just you, this is endemic in the community: people care so much about maintaining a happy, constructive working relationship with Blizzard, and being good consumers who won't question the (amazing, talented, hard-working etc.) developers and who are loyal to the Blizzard brand (oh, have to play Heroes instead of LoL because Blizzard made it). even if you are never listened to and even if every new Blizzard project is more generic and dumbed down than before. The original Starcraft was created by a handful of people almost all of whom are no longer with the company, no longer involved in game design and so on. It is now a corporate entity called Blizzard, only nominally identifiable with them, which owns and controls the Starcraft franchise. That is how it works legally, fine, and it has certain advantages in terms of stability and production values, but as a gamer you can at least recognize this situation does not always benefit you. That doesn't mean you have to always be cynical and critical, but being a one-note corporate fanboy is certainly going too far in the other direction. You have to remain independent and conscious that Blizzard does not have a right to your loyalty.
It's 2017, the game is StarCraft 2, and nobody should have to listen to Brood War elitests or StarCraft 2 haters. This is a different game than StarCraft: Brood War, a different time, with different players, so if you want people to patch Brood War, then how about you go play Brood War and take your pessimism with you.
|
On September 15 2017 05:02 Hider wrote:
One type of new type of unit interaction I imagine in my ideal version of Sc2 is anti-spellcasters which likely would address the issue you have. Imagine the following changes:
1. All ability casters receive a new armor type.
2. Each race gets one ability (too one of the existing spellcasters) that deal bonus damage/one shots other ability-casters. E.g. Fungal Growth does 0 damage to normal units but 150 damage over 6 seconds to ability-casters. This gives Fungal growth a completely unique role.
(Remember to also think of this change along with a reduction in projectile speed adding for more countermicro)
This provides a a strategic counteroption to massing spellcasters.
Thus suddenly having 10+ HTs is can be a big vulnerability where as 2-5 HTs is the more solid option. But a very skilled micro player (who can dodge fungals) can - too an extent - still get away with building a lot of HTs.
Spellcasters already have the Psionic unit type tag. + Show Spoiler +Ghost, Infestor, Viper, Queen, Sentry, Oracle, HT, DT, Archon, Warp Prism, Mothership.
Using the already existing tag more would be nice to see, as currently I believe the Ghost is only unit with an ability that cares about it, but adding in more anti-Psionic abilities could very quickly spiral out of control. Changing units to be dedicated anti-Psionic units would also throw off the balance they currently bring to the rest of the game. If you give each race a specific anti-Psionic unit that you are supposed to be making while your opponent also has one would end up feeling pointless when you both negate eachothers spellcasters, or would end up feeling very bad when a player doesn't negate the enemy spellcasters and their army gets wiped out.
Even if it's only one more anti-Psionic unit for one race, direct counters, to me, usually aren't ever fun or interesting. They don't make people think, and if you lose to them then you can assume that it wasn't because the other player was more skilled or had a better strategy, it was because "they made the HT Killers so I just lost". Or if you win then your opponent thinks "well I didn't make the HT Killers so I just lost." Neither of which are good spots to be in a game.
Checks and balances that are not direct counters, however, are very good. If they look at the Psionic tag again and do something like (just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind as an example) make all Melee units deal 125% damage to Psionic units, then you have a new number you can tweak very slightly that only affects a small number of units and brings in a new check or balance as opposed to a new counter.
|
Spellcasters already have the Psionic unit type tag.
Include Raven, Ravager and perhaps Reaper as well in there as well and define it as units that have active abilities.
Changing units to be dedicated anti-Psionic units would also throw off the balance they currently bring to the rest of the game.
The game will be completely redesigned on multiple levels. Sc2 is fundamentally flawed when it comes to maximizing strategic diversity/unique roles/good interactions etc.
Checks and balances that are not direct counters, however, are very good. I
This completely depends on the situation. If it hard counters a unit in small numbers = generally bad. This is however a skillbased hardocunter to certain units in large numbers. That should also be pretty clear since I wrote that having 2-5 HTs is still a good option.
That's actually an extremely healthy way of designing the game because it heavily promotes diversity and micro-skill.
If you give each race a specific anti-Psionic unit that you are supposed to be making while your opponent also has one would end up feeling pointless when you both negate eachothers spellcasters, or would end up feeling very bad when a player doesn't negate the enemy spellcasters and their army gets wiped out.
You are not suposed to make anything. At (almost) any point in time a well-designed game gives you at least two options w/ disadvantages and advantages.
Also I honestly don't understand the second half your sentence. You feel bad if what? If the opponent reacts and adjust his composition to what you are doing and then outplays you in the battle by landing his skillshots and you don't dodge them and as a consequence lose the battle???
make all Melee units deal 125% damage to Psionic units, then you have a new number you can tweak very slightly that only affects a small number of units and brings in a new check or balance as opposed to a new counter.
I think its apparent you haven't figured out what this is about. This is about an anti-scaling skillbased counter + adding new unique roles. I suggest you reread the conversation between me and The Red Viper to see the context.
|
On September 15 2017 03:54 bela.mervado wrote:
what bothers me (and is a nice thing to experiment with anyways) is that Blizzard tries to keep zerg antiair on the ground, helped by a caster.
i would like to have a zerg composition that performs fairly ok against an a-move mothership+carrier+archon+zealot army.
what i have on my mind is to have slowed units take +2 dmg, and have the corruptor's attack a slight slow effect (-10% speed, not more, same duration as the attack cooldown). so a few corruptors + hydra army would be able to effectively counter air.
i think the following changes would be neccessary/nice as well:
- reducing corruptor damage by 2 (maybe 3), so a pure corruptor army would not kill faster, but with the slight slow effect units like mass oracles would not be able to get away so easily.
- buffing ultra armor back to 8, marauder+concussive+marines would do +1 dmg to slowed ultras compared to the live version)
- ghosts attacks would also have a slight (10%) slow effect.
- remove infested marines
you have to remember that zerg anti air has to walk a fine line. If you remember the Bl infestor days you will understand why. Zerg anti air quickly becomes oppressive because of the incredible strength of massed broodlords vs ground, the only answer to brood lords from both terran and protoss is air, since brood lords crush ground anti air units. Zerg needs anti air strong enough that they can hold off massed air deathballs, but not so strong that they can just sit in there base and than ato win with a broodlord push.
also..... buffing ultras i guess some people enjoyed the meta where Terran had to kill zerg in 12 minutes or lose. but I did not. If you do that though i want
-reaper change reverted so we can 3 rax to win before 12 minutes
-queen change reverted so we can 16 marine drop to win before 12 minutes
-baneling buff reverted so we can marine mine push to win before 12 minutes
-hydra buff reverted so we can marine mine push to win before 12 minutes
-tanks reverted to drop tanks so we can use them to harass and help us win before 12 minutes
-burrow Infestors reverted so that they cant be used with with ravagers to stop Terran from winning before 12 minutes
-no mine invisibility nerfs so mines can be used to marine mine push to win before 12 minutes
or
- raven change reverted and no new raven changes so we can turtle and not have to win before 12 minutes
or
-liberator anti ait nerf reverted so we can play sky Terran and not have to win before 12 minutes
otherwise changing ultras would be like removing terran from the game.
|
On September 15 2017 05:36 Hider wrote:Include Raven, Ravager and perhaps Reaper as well in there as well and define it as units that have active abilities. Show nested quote +Changing units to be dedicated anti-Psionic units would also throw off the balance they currently bring to the rest of the game. The game will be completely redesigned on multiple levels. Sc2 is fundamentally flawed when it comes to maximizing strategic diversity/unique roles/good interactions etc. This completely depends on the situation. If it hard counters a unit in small numbers = generally bad. This is however a skillbased hardocunter to certain units in large numbers. That should also be pretty clear since I wrote that having 2-5 HTs is still a good option. That's actually an extremely healthy way of designing the game because it heavily promotes diversity and micro-skill.
If you aren't designing your game from the ground up to do you're wanting to do, then I don't believe that spending resources for an unknown amount of time trying to re-design several big interactions in the game is viable.
Hard counters are either hard counters or not, and counters can make for poor gameplay experiences [insert tangent about Blue Counterspells in Magic: the Gathering here]. "Skill-based Counters" mean nothing to me as the player with better micro will already have an advantage over a player with poor micro and similar macro, so it seems completely unnecessary to rebuild the game's foundations to attempt to create whatever "skill-based counters" are.
Overall it doesn't seem like healthy game design whatsoever.
|
If you aren't designing your game from the ground up to do you're wanting to do, then I don't believe that spending resources for an unknown amount of time trying to re-design several big interactions in the game is viable.
Ok we have different level of ambitions and priorities I guess. With a clear plan and structure this isn't as time consuming as you may think.
Hard counters are either hard counters or not, a
I am gonna try this for the last time:
1. You buff Marines to deal 50% damage against Stalkers --> Marines smashes them both in low and high numbers.
2. You buff Marines to deal +50% damage against Stalkers when 30 Stalkers are tightly togher --> You punish massing Stalkers.
This is an extrmeely simple and hyptothetical example to demonstrate the difference and they have huge (and different) effect on the gameplay. The effects it has must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
So no hard-counters are not just hard-counters!
mean nothing to me as the player with better micro will already have an advantage over a player with poor micro and similar macro,
This sentence also doesn't make sense. The advantage the better micro player will have entirely depends on how the micro interactions are designed.
At this point I think I have to stop responding to you.
|
im just happy that pylon cannon is finished hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
