|
On April 23 2018 18:07 gtbex wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now. Starcraft 3 hype
Get D1&2 Remastered first, then War3 HD, then rip off the War4 Mobile Game bandaid, *then* when my hairs are turning grey StarCraft 3 HYPE.
|
On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.
Everything you stated and gave as an example was discussed a bazzilion times in these threads. I was in the same boat for quite a time (simplify everything/remove overlapping mechanics/units, focus on gameplay etc etc) but the thing is it's just a matter of taste/preference. Declaring that this or that is a "bad design choice" doesnt automatically make you sound more convincingly. Design isn't something easily definable. Especially with words like bad/good/(not)fun. The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge? reluctance? and justification of all of that? People always tend to blame anyone but themselves for their mistakes. That pretty much summerize the reason behind MOBAs popularity. In Starcraft the options for that are so narrow that players jump on the first and most obvious (as they think) reason in form of some game mechanics to bash it fiercely.
You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following:
Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
|
Forcefields were frustrated but people didn't forget because they "improved" their skill. Blizzard just gave Zerg the counter to that- Ravagers. As Zerg players were mostly abused with ff. It was horrible design- having map editing robots without any counter of sort, but they fixed it simple by adding an unit with spell. If they won't do that, we all stiil would have talking about broken FF.
|
To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum)
After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc).
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know 
b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis?
Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup
Just my 2 cents
|
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote:To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum) After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc). My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already). So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point. Let me know your thoughts on this? a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis? Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup Just my 2 cents
Ugh no please don't do that
|
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote:To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum) After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc). My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already). So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point. Let me know your thoughts on this? a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis? Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup Just my 2 cents
It will confuse everyone, do my units have 150 or 120 hp on this MU ? Imagine also the casting, it would feel too weird, altough balance wise it would work
|
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote:
My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already).
So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
Sure it would be easy short-term. But then what? Nerf the raven in TvZ, then you think maybe buffing hellbats in TvP which wont be neccessary in TvZ, then.... You'll end up with a completely different race.
|
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote:To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum) After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc). My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already). So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point. Let me know your thoughts on this? a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis? Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup Just my 2 cents
While that certainly could work and wouldn't be difficult to implement (the process of fine tuning and adjusting the numbers to get them right certainly would take a lot of time, though), it would make the game a complete mess for players/casters/viewers because they'd have to memorize up to 3 different versions of the same unit.
|
On April 24 2018 15:16 PraetorARnis wrote:To Blizzard: (also posted in battle.net forum) After observing the different balance changes laid out in the past 8-12 months I can see that everytime you nerf or buff a certain unit like the Liberator or Adept to cater to balancing a specific match-up (PvT for example) it disrupts the balance of the other match-ups too (TvZ, PvZ, etc). My suggestion is: Why don't you make the balance changes exclusive for that certain match-up? Like if you feel Terran is a bit weak in the mid-game in PvT then you can buff certain Terran units exclusively for that match-up. That Terran unit however will have another balance statistics in TvZ for example (or it can stay the same if you feel that it is balanced in TvZ already). So in effect a unit like the Liberator will have different balance statistics (e.g. DPS, health, etc.) in PvT compared to TvZ for the purpose of making the balance more On Point. Let me know your thoughts on this? a. Is this such a programming/coding challenge or not? I'm not an IT professional so I don't know b. Could this be harder for progamers to prepare if the balance is set-up exclusively on a per race match-up basis? Personally I don't think it will be hard for them because they just have to take note of that 1 or 2 units with that different balance stats per matchup Just my 2 cents
I think this would be horrific. If you want to do race specific buffs/nerfs, do it with units used almost exclusively in one matchup.
Protoss have shields which attacks could have a specified damage vs. That is an exception.
Different numbers in different matchups will be really strange and unintuitive. The game will be even less beginner friendly.
I am just generally against it.
If you have race specific balance, what numbers will be used in a 2v2 or a free for all? There is a game outside of 1v1.
|
On April 23 2018 22:26 hiroshOne wrote:
Forcefields were frustrated but people didn't forget because they "improved" their skill. Blizzard just gave Zerg the counter to that- Ravagers. As Zerg players were mostly abused with ff. It was horrible design- having map editing robots without any counter of sort, but they fixed it simple by adding an unit with spell. If they won't do that, we all stiil would have talking about broken FF.
Great post that got lost in the mix. It's not like people banded together and figured out how to outplay FFs.
|
Canada11355 Posts
Aren't spore crawler +bio damage and pre-nerf WM +shield damage examples of matchup specific changes to units?
I agree that having totally different values on units based on the opponent's race (what would happen in team games btw?) would be pretty bad but there are eloquent ways to deal with matchup specific issues.
|
I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close.
|
Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
|
On April 25 2018 08:01 KR_4EVR wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
there was a unit like this in WoL alpha, the soul hunter (basically an adept riding a hoverboard) that gained a damage bonus for getting kills. but apparently they snowballed too hard - if you used them well, they got better, so the opponent had even less of a chance to counter.
|
On April 25 2018 08:01 KR_4EVR wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool if the ranks in the game on units (it's assigned by battlefield success) actually gave them individual mini-buffs like 5% movement speed increase per rank?
Edit: I don't know the object/class structure in use right now; my guess is that standardized values are a static field so this might be prohibitively demanding on CPU.
I'm not sure if having faster immortals, archons, disruptors or, carriers would be good for the game.
Also it will make zerglings impossible to play.
|
On April 25 2018 07:58 KR_4EVR wrote:
I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close.
i'd prefer mines that cost no gas, too expensive for it's current state.
|
On April 25 2018 17:10 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2018 07:58 KR_4EVR wrote:
I have a solution for the widow mine problem by turning the whole approach upside down:
Make the burrowed widowmine visible only when a unit is inside its firing range and it is not on cooldown. I believe this would give a Protoss with no detection but units around enough time to eliminate early mine drops, but it wouldn't force the Terran to always be losing mines after they go off.
Currently, they're visible while they go off as well as during cooldown. That seems like too much. I've even seen (rare, but not never) sometimes where a zerg player will kill the widowmine with pure lings before it has the chance to kill any of them. That doesn't seem right.
My idea would make them visible while they go off as well as before they go off as long as you have a unit inside the mine firing radius.
If you think about it, it makes sense too. Something that is radar-cloaked from far away, for instance, is quite visible in that same spectrum from up close. i'd prefer mines that cost no gas, too expensive for it's current state.
Mass Widows incoming
|
Thors have animation bug when they are in high impact mode.
Always the thor with bugs/errors, the big thor model, animation bug.....
|
I think giving liberators +5 damage so that when they get +1 they start to 2 shot stalkers again rather than +2 would be a good change. Because honestly the protoss will be on +3 +3 by the time your +2 Ship Weapons finishes. I also think guardian shield should be reduced or just revert marauders/widows (Back to their former damage to 1 shotting zealots)
|
On April 23 2018 20:53 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:
I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.
For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.
1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play.
a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)
b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shade
c) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression.
d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable time
e) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.
Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.
2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.
a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys.
b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility.
c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing.
d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).
3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so.
a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless.
b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile.
c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.
These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now. The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...] You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?
The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it.
It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.
Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following:
Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.
And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.
Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore.
The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
