|
An example I like is marine & medic, often cited favorably as a positive case of synergy, which nevertheless frequently leaves you with defenseless groups of medics. The synergy was broken and you are left with units that are sort of silly. Even if the design here ends up working well, because it was dependent on synergy there were still obvious pitfalls, and for SC2 Blizzard decided to eliminate it. (A decision which afaik can be traced back to when Rob Pardo was still lead designer)
If I was building a completely new RTS i would also completely remove all healers and instead try to make it test out automatic "out of battle self health" mechanics.
Also healing in battle is generally a dumb idea because it can snowball out of control and only way to beat it is critical mass of damage. That's not something you can change in Sc2, but fundamentally speaking it is unsound gamedesign.
|
On September 16 2017 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +An example I like is marine & medic, often cited favorably as a positive case of synergy, which nevertheless frequently leaves you with defenseless groups of medics. The synergy was broken and you are left with units that are sort of silly. Even if the design here ends up working well, because it was dependent on synergy there were still obvious pitfalls, and for SC2 Blizzard decided to eliminate it. (A decision which afaik can be traced back to when Rob Pardo was still lead designer) If I was building a completely new RTS i would also completely remove all healers and instead try to make it test out automatic "out of battle self health" mechanics. Also healing in battle is generally a dumb idea because it can snowball out of control and only way to beat it is critical mass of damage. That's not something you can change in Sc2, but fundamentally speaking it is unsound gamedesign.
Medics are literally an afterthought, only added in BW to make stimpack usable on marines. Healing is not quite fully integrated into the gameplay, instead it is offloaded on a unit created for this role. For something so vital as healing this could be seen as dubious, but for terran it's somewhat elegantly solved by coupling to to the ubiquitous medic/medivac and matching it with the SCV repair ability. If basic functionality is incarnated into units designed for that role, for instance queens and mothership core for macro functions, it can work out either way, so I don't think it is a negative per se. But healing is kind of dull and might be better off subsumed into overall unit design, like damage or movement. This would remove some complication from unit compositions. And that is a difference between units dedicated to economy vs army, the former is relatively simple Starcraft, while the latter is often overly busy. Requiring unit compositions that are too diverse puts a lot of stress on the player to juggle many unit types into finicky and clumsy groups of units.
Would you say that if all races had some form of out of combat shield regeneration it would be best? And everything which effects healing to be outright discontinued? (in an ideal scenario?)
With regards to in-combat healing, suppose one looks at the marginal effectiveness of adding healers. If you have, say, 12 damage points done for 10 points healed, then adding one healer literally halves the effective dps, adding another healer completely nullifies all damage. Sufficiently strong healing is very finicky like that, it will all of a sudden completely blow up in power and attain critical mass where your composition can't be killed. It reminds me a lot of "free units" where if you had to spend some time to kill locusts only to later on progress towards the swarm hosts, then if you added only a few more swarm hosts (or brood lords) you couldn't kill them at all before the cooldown would reset and they would spawn another wave. That's another scenario where the marginal effectiveness of a unit becomes very high.
If one views summons or spawns as some form of shielding, which is an alternative to healing and operates quite similarly, you can then say that all of these mechanics have this potentially fatal flaw of allowing you to reach critical mass and create immortal units.
(and actually, ranged units also have this same effect, where if you add just a few more all of a sudden enemy melee units are all killed before having a chance to reach them, which is why zerglings are awful in high numbers against marines even without medical support)
|
I wanted to mention that range and unit collision (dps intensity) already work like that though. So i think it's kinda unfair to criticize healing for this when it's basically integral to rts games in general.
What is imo more important is the ability of the player to snipe healers effectively. Or in general the unit interactions as armies get bigger. That's one of the worst things in sc2 imo, unit interactions tend to be pretty good at lower supply but become pretty bad the closer it gets to 200/200
|
On September 16 2017 22:30 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I wanted to mention that range and unit collision (dps intensity) already work like that though. So i think it's kinda unfair to criticize healing for this when it's basically integral to rts games in general.
What is imo more important is the ability of the player to snipe healers effectively. Or in general the unit interactions as armies get bigger. That's one of the worst things in sc2 imo, unit interactions tend to be pretty good at lower supply but become pretty bad the closer it gets to 200/200
This is one of the more important differences between BW and SC2 (not to derail the thread, sorry). In BW your marines are spread out, so even if they are ranged units, most of them can't fire at once. If range is finite, then for this effect to exist unit density has to be able to increase infinitely. And relatively speaking, that is not possible in BW, but it is in SC2.
Also note (I don't know how it works in LotV, my workable knowledge of SC2 ended in 2014) that you reach max supply way sooner in SC2 (HotS/WoL) versus BW, so it is actually more important than ever to ensure that unit interactions scale well. If you cap unit density then the range vs melee disparity isn't as bad. Pathfinding is one way to do this, which has been deemed impractical in SC2, but the threat of AoE damage hitting clumps of units (forcing spreading) is another one and might be a more suitable candidate here.
And just out of theoretical interest, overshooting by having slower projectiles and higher weapon cooldowns is another way. You waste fire on the first wave, so the second wave of melee units can come closer. Siege tanks work a bit like this, but afaik the effect should even be noticeable with, say, stalkers vs zerglings. But stalkers are so weak and expensive (and big) that you can't really mass them vs zerglings to benefit from these sort of critical mass effects anyway.
|
On September 16 2017 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +An example I like is marine & medic, often cited favorably as a positive case of synergy, which nevertheless frequently leaves you with defenseless groups of medics. The synergy was broken and you are left with units that are sort of silly. Even if the design here ends up working well, because it was dependent on synergy there were still obvious pitfalls, and for SC2 Blizzard decided to eliminate it. (A decision which afaik can be traced back to when Rob Pardo was still lead designer) If I was building a completely new RTS i would also completely remove all healers and instead try to make it test out automatic "out of battle self health" mechanics. Also healing in battle is generally a dumb idea because it can snowball out of control and only way to beat it is critical mass of damage. That's not something you can change in Sc2, but fundamentally speaking it is unsound gamedesign.
Healing is not bad game design, it depends entirely on the type of healing being done and which units are being healed.
In BW, War3 or Dota, WoW, and SC2, healing is a very important mechanic that gives complexity and depth to the game, on top of health and armor, and gives more room for the developers when making new damage types and new challenging encounters. It gives smart and proactive or reactive players a way to deal with situations they might not be able to without it and a way to come back from a tough situation that, when done well, doesn't shut down (counter) their opponent outright or break down the complexity or interactivity of a situation/dungeon/etc.
On September 16 2017 06:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 06:06 washikie wrote:On September 16 2017 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 15 2017 00:05 Hider wrote: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) I long forgot the specifics, but I used to have a talking point about how energy is archaic design, a relic from BW, and no longer belongs to any sort of streamlined, tactical RTS. An obvious example are all the energy upgrades which Blizzard arbitrarily adds or removes to the game. If energy design would fit well into the overall game then you should not be able to randomly shuffle around virtually the only upgrades related to it. I can't do a longer post on this on mobile, but basically, if you look at the history of ability resources in video games, it always tends towards reliability and availability. Spells are to be a reliable feature every battle, you should be able to cast a predictable amount at the start, and there should be no extreme variations on this. This prevents certain types of bad gameplay effects and it is less frustrating for players, but an argument can be made it is strategically more shallow (but that would be a confusing argument which is difficult to quantify or prove relevant, although it might be important). I disagree, Although you can make fun ability using units without energy like in red alert 3, energy does have an important function in sc2. Energy makes spell casters an investment, spell casters are a unit that gains power over time due to there energy mechanic. Further energy provides another lever that allows for balancing of these units, being able to adjust the starting energy of a unit allows the designers to increase or decrease the time it takes for you to effectively transition to these units. It also creates a period of weakness where the units are not as powerful allowing wich creates timing windows for an opponent to abuse before the units are at maximum effectiveness. But why do you want to have units that gain power over time or which are initially defenseless? A marine does not become more powerful if it lazies around and rests for a couple of moments. I think it is a totally arbitrary choice which complicates the game both strategically (and has some negative effects like turtling and ability spam) and from a casual perspective(reliable unit control), and also doesn't fit with Blizzard's obvious longterm direction of trying to create (mindless) "high-octane" gameplay. I have never seen anyone give a really solid argument (i.e. which is less vague than "creates timing windows and increases strategy") for why it should absolutely belong in the game. For instance, your argument that it makes balancing easier is really weak, because any alternative energy design could also have levers for balance. And Blizzard rarely messes with these values to begin with. I don't dislike energy, mind you, I just think it is underdiscussed and taken for granted. I also think it worked better in BW without smartcasting and with slower paced gameplay.
Most spellcasting units in StarCraft (and War3) are made to have enough energy to cast a potentially impactful spell as soon as they are made, or several much less impactful spells, and be capable of casting multiple devastating spells or one potentially devastating spell later in the game at the cost of investing resources and time into the unit, sometimes investing in additional upgrades for that unit. If Terran could just pop out a Ghost and drop down a Nuke that lands after a second it would break down a lot of the strategic decisions players are supposed to be making, but if they have to build seven Ghosts and have them on the map for four minutes doing nothing until they can all launch a Nuke together then it removes other strategic decisions and isn't fun. Giving most units an ability to use right away makes them fairly reliable, impactful if used well, and also fun because they can do things no other units can do.
Having to invest in things is a massive part of traditional RTS games as well. Do you rush or try to play a longer macro game? Do you go for a timing attack/defense with this number of army units, or is it more wise to get fewer army units and invest into something a little more technical/magical?
Energy/Mana are very easily understandable mechanics and most gamers today will immediately understand what it is and how it works just by looking at the unit's HP/MP bars, which is extremely beneficial when making games. If there's something already there that everyone understands, then use it. It's also why health/life and damage and armor are used as opposed to completely alien terminology or mechanics. Armor protects you, damage is self explanatory, and so is health.
Energy is also consistent across many units between BW and SC2. Abilities that are on cooldown are very different mechanically and are designed from a slightly different perspective just like how Warrior spells in WoW that require Rage (starts at empty and is generated through melee attacks, taking damage, and being engaged in combat) are designed a bit differently from other spells that require the traditional Mana (slowly regenerates over time to full).
Consistent, understandable, gives complexity to the game, adds strategic depth, and is fun. All of those are things you usually want in a game, as a player or a designer. But, sometimes a little inconsistency or smidgen of randomness can be good too. You might whiff your Fungal Growth or your opponent might dodge it. You might use your Force Field too early and not have enough energy for when the Zerglings really come pouring into your base. You might use energy boosting your Medivac across the map for a drop but not have energy to quickly retrea-
oh wait no Boost is still bad nevermind that last one. 
For an RTS in which players are supposed to be commanding such large numbers of units, adding more types of unit resources on top of energy and cooldown abilities could demand too much from players, especially in a game like StarCraft which already demands a great deal from its players, at any skill level.
Hopefully that answers your question.
|
I hate the new direction, it's always more mech, stronger mech, while it's boring to play vs mech.
Tanks are way too strong, a turtling Terran is unbreakable, we have all seen innovation beating dark : he made 20 tanks and pushed, it breaks every ground army if zerg doesn't have vipers/broodlords.
TvZ used to constant midgame interaction, now it's just defend and rush T3 for Zerg : never attack, Terran can't be attacked before hive.
People whine about photon overcharge, but tanks are alike, outrange everything, the more you have the best it is., it prevent any attack and force long/boring game or invincible deathball.
The best will be to remove the unit and remplace it by something else not designed to turtle, or at least make mass tanks bad, and mech something else than 20 sieged tanks at home, then push, siege and destroy every ground army.
If they really want TvZ to be 100% mech, at least make it as fun as playing vs bio, currently it's still a lame playstyle.
|
On September 16 2017 23:07 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +Energy/Mana are very easily understandable mechanics and most gamers today will immediately understand what it is and how it works just by looking at the unit's HP/MP bars, which is extremely beneficial when making games. If there's something already there that everyone understands, then use it. It's also why health/life and damage and armor are used as opposed to completely alien terminology or mechanics. Armor protects you, damage is self explanatory, and so is health.
I would say this is besides the point and concerns optics and interface design rather than energy in the classical sense of having a pool of energy which slowly regenerates. In my view, if you include some methods of instant regeneration, abilities that don't cost too much energy and add cooldowns to everything you have already abandoned the most purely classical paradigm. In these cases the optics are still very similar, but functionally speaking it is different.
There exists armor as a mechanic in all sorts of games, but what is unique to Starcraft is that it reduces damage by a fixed amount instead of by a percentage. This drastically changes the functionality, just because it all fits under the idea of armor doesn't mean that it's the same.
As an example related to SC2, suppose that max energy is only 150, but regeneration is a bit higher, this would already be much different from how it is now. Blizzard could literally make this change tomorrow without technically breaking the game, all casters would still work. It is still energy, but it is a different alternative. And we don't really have a way of discussing whether that would be better or not.
|
On September 17 2017 00:20 Tyrhanius wrote:
Tanks are way too strong, a turtling Terran is unbreakable, we have all seen innovation beating dark : he made 20 tanks and pushed, it breaks every ground army if zerg doesn't have vipers/broodlords.
....
If they really want TvZ to be 100% mech, at least make it as fun as playing vs bio, currently it's still a lame playstyle.
are you talking about on the PTR or in a GSL/SSL game using hte current patch?
in the GSL series Innovation used "mass tanks" only 1 time in 7 games against Dark.
i see GSL Terrans using a variety of bio, bio-mech, and mech strats and the mech they use is very aggressive.
when i play and my game goes longer than 12 minutes i always have at least 3 Factories because my APM and multitasking are not good enough for double pronged bio drops combined with proper macro... i think most Terran players running at ~125 APM with crappy multitasking are wise to include a lot of Vehicles and/or Air in their armies after 12 minutes. in general slow, lousy, Terran players are best served going Mech. i think armies with lots of Mech in them require less APM. but that's a guess on my part.. i'm no expert. Its easy to spend all your cash .. just queue up 3+ Thors.
In conclusion, i like what they've done with Mech the past year. Its been interesting to see more varieed strats from GSL Terrans and lousy players like me can hang in better late game because its easier to spend all your money with giant Mech armies. Send some Hellbats and Thors in .. A-Move.. and forget. 
|
Would you say that if all races had some form of out of combat shield regeneration it would be best? And everything which effects healing to be outright discontinued? (in an ideal scenario?)
I don't know if you need shields on top of normal HP. But I imagine that the out-of-combat healing would work similar to shield-regeneration for protoss. This gives players a reward to micro to save injured units during battles.
And generally speaking, all in-combat healers should be removed (or not added to the game in the first place - since this isn't Sc2 I am talking about). There might be exceptions if they add some type of cool interaction in w/e way - can't really think of any example.
I wanted to mention that range and unit collision (dps intensity) already work like that though. So i think it's kinda unfair to criticize healing for this when it's basically integral to rts games in general.
In combat healing isn't critical to anything. It's an unnecasary snowball-mechanic that doesn't reward movement-based micro. In many cases it disrewards movement as the healer needs to stand still to heal.
When you build a new RTS from the ground up you should start with the absolute most simple design and only add new elements if they add good micro interactions + strategic depth.
@ blunderfulguy
You are just making stuff up that makes no sense, like what does healing have anything to do with damage types. Your whole response is so generic and vague - it contained no specific examples nor no analysis whether that could be accomplished in different ways.
And generally you seem imcapable of understanding my point. It's like you see the headline in an article without reading all of the analysis below and then just make random responses while having no clue what the article was about.
So please stop responding to my comments. Thanks in advance.
|
On September 17 2017 00:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 23:07 blunderfulguy wrote:Energy/Mana are very easily understandable mechanics and most gamers today will immediately understand what it is and how it works just by looking at the unit's HP/MP bars, which is extremely beneficial when making games. If there's something already there that everyone understands, then use it. It's also why health/life and damage and armor are used as opposed to completely alien terminology or mechanics. Armor protects you, damage is self explanatory, and so is health. I would say this is besides the point and concerns optics and interface design rather than energy in the classical sense of having a pool of energy which slowly regenerates. In my view, if you include some methods of instant regeneration, abilities that don't cost too much energy and add cooldowns to everything you have already abandoned the most purely classical paradigm. In these cases the optics are still very similar, but functionally speaking it is different. There exists armor as a mechanic in all sorts of games, but what is unique to Starcraft is that it reduces damage by a fixed amount instead of by a percentage. This drastically changes the functionality, just because it all fits under the idea of armor doesn't mean that it's the same. As an example related to SC2, suppose that max energy is only 150, but regeneration is a bit higher, this would already be much different from how it is now. Blizzard could literally make this change tomorrow without technically breaking the game, all casters would still work. It is still energy, but it is a different alternative. And we don't really have a way of discussing whether that would be better or not.
That was meant to be taken as part of the whole explanation, not meant to be of utmost importance on its own.
Note: Spells do not traditionally have a cooldown in StarCraft, their "cooldown period" is simply the time it takes for the unit to regenerate enough energy to cast the spell again. Abilities in StarCraft 2, however, do have cooldowns but do not require a resource like spells do, and are different from a design perspective.
Now, if you increase energy regeneration for spellcasters and don't change their energy pool or energy cost for their spells, then, obviously, spellcasters will be able to cast all of their spells more often and still be able to cast the same amount of any spell at max energy, and will be able to cast again sooner and more often than compared to normal regen.
If you increase energy regen and decrease the pool but don't change the cost, then you make it so they can cast fewer of any spell at max energy but be able to cast again sooner and more often.
If you decrease the energy costs but nothing else, then they can cast more spells from max energy, cast again sooner, and cast more over time.
If you increase the energy pool, then they can cast fewer spells from max, but cast again just as soon and cast just as many spells over time.
So on and so forth. Removing 1/4th of spellcasters' energy pool then you would have to rebalance all of the energy costs of every spell so that the units stay just as useful for their investment, or increase their energy regeneration to make up for them being able to cast less spells from max energy, so on. All of the spellcasters' mineral, gas, and supply costs would very likely have to be looked at again as well since how impactful they are right away, how impactful they are after you have waited until they have max/"enough" energy, and how impactful they are over time during an engagement will be potentially drastically changed.
Technically it might not break the game, but there's more going on then just one spellcaster for one race. I've favored this sort of change for a very long time for Sentries, reducing their energy pool and possibly slightly increasing their regeneration, but if one unit regenerates faster than all of the other spellcasters so then could very possibly be confusing or frustrating for a large number of players and have unforeseen consequences such as players not making Sentries or not making other spellcasters because of how they do or do not understand them. At that point it could be better in one way to call it something other than "energy", but if it isn't called energy then it can be confusing in another way.
So, again, there is a lot more that has to be considered than just "well it wouldn't break the game" or "well I don't like the way it works" etc. etc. like many people think.
And keeping things consistent is of extreme importance to casual players in RTS games, something I didn't really emphasize before so I'll just toss it in here at the end. In fighting games or action rpgs or Warcraft 3 or Dota 2, players typically control a small number of units, or a single unit for most of these examples, and there is a lot less to focus and demand from the players. When you play with one unit then you can expect players to learn what makes that unit special and what is different about it from every other unit since players are expected to spend a long time player with that one unit and only that one unit. For StarCraft there are many more units and a lot more going on and players are expected to use any given unit in any given match on any given map, so with that already high demand you have to have consistency elsewhere. Like energy functionality, armor, and types of health/shield regeneration, for example.
|
I wanted to respond to more of your post, but actually I didn't have time. To be honest, since I don't follow the game anymore, I noticed that whenever I still respond here I tend to just repeat posts I made a few years ago. Here are two previous posts I've written on this topic, which are probably better than what I would be able to come up with now.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/498835-community-feedback-update-november-20?page=5#99
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/499295-lotv-post-dh-reactions?page=17#325
Maybe to add to this, in Day[9]'s RTS game you had spells on global hotkeys even if you didn't have the units selected. That was possible because of the restricted unit choice and unit design, but I think it still points the way to the future. Modern game designers tend to consider players to be sheep that must be prevented from experiencing any sort of real human emotions lest they realize their condition as cattle and become frustrated and try different games. It's sort of a caricature, but from a certain point of view designers really don't want players to have to deal with implementation details like specific energy levels at all. That's actually why in some RTS games they would hide damage outputs or hit points, because it's not information players ought to be bothered by (as opposed to reality, where people are actually interested in it). So in Diablo III if you want to know what a spell does you have to change the settings to show additional information, or show a modifier key and so on. It's only a harmless example, but it's symptomatic.
If Blizzard has an RTS game, they probably don't like the fact that energy is naturally unreliable and is dependent on somewhat hidden or confusing aspects like specific energy levels of units. And for spells to become more reliable the best method is to have a higher number of units, which reduces variance. But this doesn't scale well across units numbers, it creates different usage regimes depending on supply count and so on. It's not really a universal system from the perspective of the player. I just very strongly suspect that given full reign (e.g. in a new RTS game) Blizzard would eliminate energy and replace it with some sort of universal access to spells or with ability cooldowns or with hero units.
In rpg/moba games hero units also have energy, but their spells have cooldowns and they tend to have access to out of combat regeneration tools. I mean, in Warcraft 3 casters weren't that widely used outside of heroes (which had moon wells or clarity potions) and when they were used, as for the human race, they for the most part had cheap, automated abilities like heal or slow, frequently coupled with the archmage that gave casters an infinite mana aura.
If you look at the progress from WCII, to BW, to WCIII, to SC2, then SC2 is clearly a retreat. They obviously didn't consider redesigning energy at all in the early design of SC2, so we still have it. And actually it is sometimes to the game's detriment, because part of the problem with the infestor or the raven can be blamed on a very high maximum energy. This is a game with smartcast, so it is much easier to use casters efficiently.
Now personally I like the hypothetical strategic aspects to energy, and I fear that any new system would probably be laser-focused on creating reliable casters that have a set number of spells available at the start of every battle, while decoupling it from any sort of notion of investment and the idea of nurturing casters. But if energy is this completely malleable system, which easily accommodates models that are functionally very different, and if in SC2 nobody cares to analyze what actual, literal strategical decision making it creates, and if there is no good way to talk about why max energy should be 200 instead of 100 or 250, or why energy regeneration should be so low, then it feels underdiscussed and susceptible to replacement or subversion by an inferior modern system created by overly-clever game designers.
Now maybe all of this is a bit vague, but then I'm not some sort of expert on SC2 anyway. :o
|
On September 15 2017 16:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Did you think about the implications of increasing the damage, specifically the impact on Ravager rushes against Terran? I am talking about balancing the Ravager around lower delay + higher AOE and perhaps higher damage. This implies worse core stats. If early game rushes for whatever reason becomes too strong you could reduce CB damage against structures. That's a potential balance issue and is a numbers issue. Doesn't have anything to do with game design.
Exactly my point, he most likely changed it for balance purposes not design purposes, so you judging his ability to design based on that is stupid.
Now I see that you're calling healing during battle a dumb idea and unsound game design, never mind, you just don't have a clue what you're on about, I'll just leave you to it.
|
Exactly my point, he most likely changed it for balance purposes not design purposes, so you judging his ability to design based on that is stupid.
No he wasn't. When you buff one metric and nerf another it's per definition a design change so you have no point or argumentation. You are just defending him blindly!
And If I had said any other TL user didn't understand game-deisgn you wouldn't have blinked an eye - impressive ignorance from your side + appeal to authority fallacy from your side.
Now I see that you're calling healing during battle a dumb idea and unsound game design, never mind, you just don't have a clue what you're on about, I'll just leave you to it.
"Didn't know TL users had such strong knowledge of game-design so they shouldn't be allowed to say other TL users don't know what they are talking about - Only TLO and I are allowed to share opinions - anyone else opinions should be dismissed without any analysis of them"
Impresisve double standard. Could you possibly be a more irrational fanboy?
Anyway, I should do my best to ignore irrational boys like you so have a nice life but please don't respond to my comments in the future. Have a nice life.
|
On September 18 2017 15:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Exactly my point, he most likely changed it for balance purposes not design purposes, so you judging his ability to design based on that is stupid.
No he wasn't. When you buff one metric and nerf another it's per definition a design change so you have no point or argumentation. You are just defending him blindly! And If I had said any other TL user didn't understand game-deisgn you wouldn't have blinked an eye - impressive ignorance from your side + appeal to authority fallacy from your side. Show nested quote +Now I see that you're calling healing during battle a dumb idea and unsound game design, never mind, you just don't have a clue what you're on about, I'll just leave you to it. "Didn't know TL users had such strong knowledge of game-design so they shouldn't be allowed to say other TL users don't know what they are talking about - Only TLO and I are allowed to share opinions - anyone else opinions should be dismissed without any analysis of them" Impresisve double standard. Could you possibly be a more irrational fanboy? Anyway, I should do my best to ignore irrational boys like you so have a nice life but please don't respond to my comments in the future. Have a nice life.
Are you trying to gaslight other users? Because it seems like that's what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
