|
On October 18 2017 18:05 Hider wrote:
Btw, did the mod attempt to do anything to make it easier to survive without a "good build" in the opening game?
E.g. if a new player plays the mod and plays against a slightly better player that does a basic rush and losses the game in 6 minutes, that might not be a fun experience.
No it did not. Which should have been the first thing they looked at, imo.
|
On October 18 2017 19:12 NickHotS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 18:05 Hider wrote:
Btw, did the mod attempt to do anything to make it easier to survive without a "good build" in the opening game?
E.g. if a new player plays the mod and plays against a slightly better player that does a basic rush and losses the game in 6 minutes, that might not be a fun experience.
No it did not. Which should have been the first thing they looked at, imo.
actually....free workers, that auto produced is kinda thing that help you survive
...if you dont have forces to deal with rush attack , its not the build problem actually, and can be easly fixed next game by gaining forces earlyer
|
...if you dont have forces to deal with rush attack , its not the build problem actually, and can be easly fixed next game by gaining forces earlyer
Isn't there the whole issue still of the oponent going for various types of cheese, like how do you stop mass VR/oracle/dt all in which isn't neccasarily only related to army forces.
The only way to reduce that learning barrier is to boost natural defenses early on.
Though obviously there is no easy fix for that because it may also make the game egen more stagnant. Hence why I also believe building a game around Sc2 won't work because the game is just too fundamentally flawed to attract casual players.
|
Do you guys think that lowering attack speed or damage would do better than doubling HP, or will balance just have to be manually tweaked a bit to keep zerglings from being the only unit you ever need to make?
|
I think straight double health doesn't work very well. Break's unit interactions with banelings, widow mines, liberators, any high damage unit. Slowing down movement/attack speed and lowering overall damage would make for good changes to test.
More room to react would be better than simply not having to react at all. I think much of the frustration with high damage interactions in low skill levels is that players aren't able to react quickly enough and get punished before they feel they had a chance to influence the fight.
|
On October 19 2017 00:04 ruypture wrote:
I think straight double health doesn't work very well. Break's unit interactions with banelings, widow mines, liberators, any high damage unit. Slowing down movement/attack speed and lowering overall damage would make for good changes to test.
Things we have already begun to patch out with balance changes. Banelings and Mines already got buffed to compensate, Liberators as far as we are concerned are currently fine and still performing well.
Doubling the HP makes balancing far easier since it provides a solid baseline to work from. Slowing down movement/attack speed introduces far more problems that would be much trickier to balance.
More room to react would be better than simply not having to react at all. I think much of the frustration with high damage interactions in low skill levels is that players aren't able to react quickly enough and get punished before they feel they had a chance to influence the fight.
Yes and increased HP solves that.
|
On October 18 2017 19:12 NickHotS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 18:05 Hider wrote:
Btw, did the mod attempt to do anything to make it easier to survive without a "good build" in the opening game?
E.g. if a new player plays the mod and plays against a slightly better player that does a basic rush and losses the game in 6 minutes, that might not be a fun experience.
No it did not. Which should have been the first thing they looked at, imo.
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
The game doesn't play itself. You're going to have to learn to deal with early aggression. You're just not going to lose because you forgot to build workers or got your units stuck behind a supply depot anymore. You'll lose because the other guy had more dudes that you and that's absolutely ok.
|
The only way to reduce that learning barrier is to boost natural defenses early on.
No, that is not the only way to deal with it. A way to deal with it, which we did, was to reduce the impact that early game cheese would have on the economy by making individual workers less valuable and easier to replace while reducing massive burst damage from units like Oracles that could quickly wipe out mineral lines.
|
On October 19 2017 03:03 ClanWars wrote:
Things we have already begun to patch out with balance changes. Banelings and Mines already got buffed to compensate, Liberators as far as we are concerned are currently fine and still performing well.
nice to read that balance patching is already happening.
On October 19 2017 03:03 ClanWars wrote:
Doubling the HP makes balancing far easier since it provides a solid baseline to work from. Slowing down movement/attack speed introduces far more problems that would be much trickier to balance.
slowing down movement speed and attack speeds makes the game "feel" less fun. i realize this is 100% subjective.... but SC2 just doesn't "feel" as fun at the slower speed options Blizzard provides.
please Mr. ClanWars sir,
please keep the attack speeds and animation speeds the same
keep the unit movements the same speed.
|
On October 19 2017 03:05 ClanWars wrote:
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
Sure you can. Since you're citing Supreme Commander you're halfway there. In that game, you start with a unit which is very powerful at the early stage of the game but scales worse as more powerful units are coming out.
So you can do the same thing here, but you have even more control than that. You can introduce a Hyperion "hero" unit, which is not controlled by the player directly, but that will hover around his bases and defend them for him. In turn you can put more emphasis on map objectives to reward players who prefer to be more active in the early game.
|
On October 19 2017 08:02 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:05 ClanWars wrote:
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
Sure you can. Since you're citing Supreme Commander you're halfway there. In that game, you start with a unit which is very powerful at the early stage of the game but scales worse as more powerful units are coming out. So you can do the same thing here, but you have even more control than that. You can introduce a Hyperion "hero" unit, which is not controlled by the player directly, but that will hover around his bases and defend them for him. In turn you can put more emphasis on map objectives to reward players who prefer to be more active in the early game.
But why?
Why do you want to take rushing out of the game? Rushing is part of RTS. I have no interest in removing things from the game that add to the strategy of it, only unnecessary mechanical obstacles.
|
On October 19 2017 08:02 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:05 ClanWars wrote:
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
Sure you can. Since you're citing Supreme Commander you're halfway there. In that game, you start with a unit which is very powerful at the early stage of the game but scales worse as more powerful units are coming out. So you can do the same thing here, but you have even more control than that. You can introduce a Hyperion "hero" unit, which is not controlled by the player directly, but that will hover around his bases and defend them for him. In turn you can put more emphasis on map objectives to reward players who prefer to be more active in the early game.
Having a unit like the ACU would never work in sc2 and it doesn't stop rushes at all. It also scales a lot better than you think.
|
On October 17 2017 20:58 aQuaSC wrote:Slightly going out of topic, but to me personally biggest flaw SC2 has had over the years is the fact that there are many units that are present across campaign, multiplayer and co-op in which they work completely differently. What SC1 has best is the fact that you get the same tools in multiplayer as in campaign - single player in SC1 is an amazing introduction to the multiplayer part of the game. If you can handle units in campaign there you can do it in multiplayer. Future RTS should take this into account. One thing in the game needs to be identical across all of the game modes. It's understandable that Blizzard wanted SC2 campaigns and other stuff being as explosive, fun and varied as possible and to me they did, but it shouldn't take priority in development of all of the game modes. It ended up dividing the game in itself, I mean you have Adepts shooting air in LotV campaign and in co-op, but not in multiplayer? Why? A tooltip before a regular multiplayer match saying that campaign units are heavily modified compared to multiplayer is not a fix for this. In my opinion multiplayer should have and be a base set of game units/mechanics with campaign/co-op having stuff exclusive to them and every change affecting multiplayer should affect other modes too, but it's too late to change any of that. Axiom is only going further that way. If it was ever made with a thought of being an entrance to regular SC2 1v1, well it won't be. It's a completely different game mode, it shouldn't be compared to regular competitive experience, it's more of an RPG where you play a person that can play SC2 or something. If someone happens to get into SC2 through it they will be in for a surprise when they try the real thing, hopefully they will stay for the challenge. Or maybe I'm overthinking it all 
I couldnt disagree more, I think that makes SC2's campaign so fun and dynamic is that the fact you got access to really cool and fun units that wouldnt be balanced in a PVP mode, it also made the game rewarding to get all the side/bonus objectives, not to mention replayable as you sought different upgrades through different playthroughs. And for the case of LOTV, it was a min/max decision and you decided what units you wanted to bring into battle with you.
That's kind of sets Blizzard RTSes apart from shitty Relic/Petroglyph campaigns, where they give you the same units, the same maps and the campaign is essentially a bunch of skirmish maps.
|
On October 19 2017 08:23 ClanWars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 08:02 WaesumNinja wrote:On October 19 2017 03:05 ClanWars wrote:
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
Sure you can. Since you're citing Supreme Commander you're halfway there. In that game, you start with a unit which is very powerful at the early stage of the game but scales worse as more powerful units are coming out. So you can do the same thing here, but you have even more control than that. You can introduce a Hyperion "hero" unit, which is not controlled by the player directly, but that will hover around his bases and defend them for him. In turn you can put more emphasis on map objectives to reward players who prefer to be more active in the early game. But why? Why do you want to take rushing out of the game? Rushing is part of RTS. I have no interest in removing things from the game that add to the strategy of it, only unnecessary mechanical obstacles.
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1
Rushing is a perfectly acceptable strat. If people don't lile it then they should practice a way to beat it.
|
This trend is why the rts genre died and sc2 being the last survivor.
Noobification.
Rts games are not supposed to be easy.
This is why they are fun.
Like a command and conquer dev once told me ''we had to figure out something for the people who don't realize they need to build multiple harvesters''. Cnc4 was released shortly after.
|
On October 19 2017 08:23 ClanWars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 08:02 WaesumNinja wrote:On October 19 2017 03:05 ClanWars wrote:
You can't "fix" builds. Rushes are going to happen in every RTS. There is no way to stop that without putting artificial limitations (such as Supcoms no-rush X minute forcefield) into the game that take it way too far away from the SC2 experience.
Sure you can. Since you're citing Supreme Commander you're halfway there. In that game, you start with a unit which is very powerful at the early stage of the game but scales worse as more powerful units are coming out. So you can do the same thing here, but you have even more control than that. You can introduce a Hyperion "hero" unit, which is not controlled by the player directly, but that will hover around his bases and defend them for him. In turn you can put more emphasis on map objectives to reward players who prefer to be more active in the early game. But why? Why do you want to take rushing out of the game? Rushing is part of RTS. I have no interest in removing things from the game that add to the strategy of it, only unnecessary mechanical obstacles.
A game-designers job is to identify what the fun parts of the game is and remove the unfun parts. You can never make everyone happy at the same time so compromises must be made in relation to the target group.
With regards to rushing, it depends on what your target group finds fun. Is it to play a game where you are spread out over multiple bases and where you can have multiple attacks all over the map before the game ends?
Or is it a 5 minute attack where one guy has a 30% larger army and can thus a-move to victory?
One of the reasons the MOBA-genre is popular is that the game clearly defines a natural defenders advantage (through towers) so you just can't go for a surprise early game strategy and kill the enemy nexus after 7 minutes. That's unlikely to be a fun experience.
Instead it guarantees that you have actual duels and can fight the enemy opponent at somewhat even ground which tends to be what people prefer.
Regardless I would never criticize the mod for not adding more natural defenders advantage. I think you are doing the right job at making harass/cheese openings more forgiving, but I don't agree that those should be considered long-term fundamental fixes for the RTS genre.
Eventually the RTS genre (to survive long-term) needs to learn from moba's and develop some type of structure that almost guarateens "even fights" all across the map.
|
On October 19 2017 23:01 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 20:58 aQuaSC wrote:Slightly going out of topic, but to me personally biggest flaw SC2 has had over the years is the fact that there are many units that are present across campaign, multiplayer and co-op in which they work completely differently. What SC1 has best is the fact that you get the same tools in multiplayer as in campaign - single player in SC1 is an amazing introduction to the multiplayer part of the game. If you can handle units in campaign there you can do it in multiplayer. Future RTS should take this into account. One thing in the game needs to be identical across all of the game modes. It's understandable that Blizzard wanted SC2 campaigns and other stuff being as explosive, fun and varied as possible and to me they did, but it shouldn't take priority in development of all of the game modes. It ended up dividing the game in itself, I mean you have Adepts shooting air in LotV campaign and in co-op, but not in multiplayer? Why? A tooltip before a regular multiplayer match saying that campaign units are heavily modified compared to multiplayer is not a fix for this. In my opinion multiplayer should have and be a base set of game units/mechanics with campaign/co-op having stuff exclusive to them and every change affecting multiplayer should affect other modes too, but it's too late to change any of that. Axiom is only going further that way. If it was ever made with a thought of being an entrance to regular SC2 1v1, well it won't be. It's a completely different game mode, it shouldn't be compared to regular competitive experience, it's more of an RPG where you play a person that can play SC2 or something. If someone happens to get into SC2 through it they will be in for a surprise when they try the real thing, hopefully they will stay for the challenge. Or maybe I'm overthinking it all I couldnt disagree more, I think that makes SC2's campaign so fun and dynamic is that the fact you got access to really cool and fun units that wouldnt be balanced in a PVP mode, it also made the game rewarding to get all the side/bonus objectives, not to mention replayable as you sought different upgrades through different playthroughs. And for the case of LOTV, it was a min/max decision and you decided what units you wanted to bring into battle with you. That's kind of sets Blizzard RTSes apart from shitty Relic/Petroglyph campaigns, where they give you the same units, the same maps and the campaign is essentially a bunch of skirmish maps.
I never meant that all of the modes should have the same stuff. I just merely pointed out that the same units should work in the exact same way across different game types and the anti-air Adept in co-op and campaign was an example of that.
Multiplayer = multiplayer units. Co-op/campaign = multiplayer units + all other stuff. All of this to prevent numerous situations like like player going to multiplayer while having co-op or campaign experience where he used adepts against mutalisks thinking he could do the same in 1v1.
|
On October 20 2017 00:45 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 23:01 lestye wrote:On October 17 2017 20:58 aQuaSC wrote:Slightly going out of topic, but to me personally biggest flaw SC2 has had over the years is the fact that there are many units that are present across campaign, multiplayer and co-op in which they work completely differently. What SC1 has best is the fact that you get the same tools in multiplayer as in campaign - single player in SC1 is an amazing introduction to the multiplayer part of the game. If you can handle units in campaign there you can do it in multiplayer. Future RTS should take this into account. One thing in the game needs to be identical across all of the game modes. It's understandable that Blizzard wanted SC2 campaigns and other stuff being as explosive, fun and varied as possible and to me they did, but it shouldn't take priority in development of all of the game modes. It ended up dividing the game in itself, I mean you have Adepts shooting air in LotV campaign and in co-op, but not in multiplayer? Why? A tooltip before a regular multiplayer match saying that campaign units are heavily modified compared to multiplayer is not a fix for this. In my opinion multiplayer should have and be a base set of game units/mechanics with campaign/co-op having stuff exclusive to them and every change affecting multiplayer should affect other modes too, but it's too late to change any of that. Axiom is only going further that way. If it was ever made with a thought of being an entrance to regular SC2 1v1, well it won't be. It's a completely different game mode, it shouldn't be compared to regular competitive experience, it's more of an RPG where you play a person that can play SC2 or something. If someone happens to get into SC2 through it they will be in for a surprise when they try the real thing, hopefully they will stay for the challenge. Or maybe I'm overthinking it all I couldnt disagree more, I think that makes SC2's campaign so fun and dynamic is that the fact you got access to really cool and fun units that wouldnt be balanced in a PVP mode, it also made the game rewarding to get all the side/bonus objectives, not to mention replayable as you sought different upgrades through different playthroughs. And for the case of LOTV, it was a min/max decision and you decided what units you wanted to bring into battle with you. That's kind of sets Blizzard RTSes apart from shitty Relic/Petroglyph campaigns, where they give you the same units, the same maps and the campaign is essentially a bunch of skirmish maps. I never meant that all of the modes should have the same stuff. I just merely pointed out that the same units should work in the exact same way across different game types and the anti-air Adept in co-op and campaign was an example of that. Multiplayer = multiplayer units. Co-op/campaign = multiplayer units + all other stuff. All of this to prevent numerous situations like like player going to multiplayer while having co-op or campaign experience where he used adepts against mutalisks thinking he could do the same in 1v1.
Gotcha, I guess this makes sense. I think they tried to do this, I recall like the zealots and sentries had 3 different names in the LOTV campaign, whereas the Adept doesn't, maybe thats the ideal solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
