|
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote:
I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast.
* (Credit to Tastosis) Prevent Zerg from spreading creep to sections of the map unless they use a overlord, nydus, or hatchery first
* (Credit to Tastosis) Limit proxy locations
* It would have prevented all those late game scenarios where Zerg continually parked spores and spines under their supreme late game army.
I'd like for map designers to explore more in this area of the games because there plenty of other consequences from a map change like this.
Problem with un-buildable terrain is that it needs to be very clear visually in-game and from the overviews that are usually used in judging. It could still be done with some standardization.
|
1. Formation movement - not necessarily allowing players to change it on the fly but generally to spread units more. This feature was introduced to the editor in https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/starcraft2/23471116/starcraft-ii-4-13-0-ptr-patch-notes
2. Higher than 200 max supply. Perhaps 250. Unit food costs are higher compared to BW, which is not inherently bad, but larger armies would be great.
3. Base mining saturation should gradually decrease the efficiency of mining. There have been plenty of posts about this with various strategies/implementations.
4. Limit the number of times spine/spore crawlers can reposition. Maybe 2-4 times. Something not very limiting but still preventing some end game ridiculousness.
5. Nydus Worm no longer makes a global sound if it is created on creep.
6. High ground advantage
7. Reduce creep tumor vision.
|
Warp Prism pickup range reduced by 1.
Smart Servos to include tank (siege) as well.
MedVacs wouldn't really repair Hellbats.
|
Nerf lurker speed, a siege unit shouldn't be that fast. Either that or nerf the dmg. A big creep nerf is also needed. Maybe even nerf banelings too.
More likely scenario: warp prisms now cost 500 minerals and the swarm host gets +100HP
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote:
I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast.
* (Credit to Tastosis) Prevent Zerg from spreading creep to sections of the map unless they use a overlord, nydus, or hatchery first
* (Credit to Tastosis) Limit proxy locations
* It would have prevented all those late game scenarios where Zerg continually parked spores and spines under their supreme late game army.
I'd like for map designers to explore more in this area of the games because there plenty of other consequences from a map change like this.
Not just this, but also 100% this.
Just general experimentation with map features in general has been a drum I’ve been banging for ages. I think a bigger map pool with more vetoes gives the space for not just solving problems, but creating more varied strategy and general gameplay.
You’ll know better than me as more of a BW veteran, whereas I’m a latecomer to the party but there’s a hell of a lot you can do with maps if they’re not subject to the constraints of basically being a standard map and being relatively balanced across all matchups
|
On March 29 2022 02:46 BisuDagger wrote:
I really liked the idea behind un-buildable terrain discussed in the GSL Group C cast.
* (Credit to Tastosis) Prevent Zerg from spreading creep to sections of the map unless they use a overlord, nydus, or hatchery first
* (Credit to Tastosis) Limit proxy locations
* It would have prevented all those late game scenarios where Zerg continually parked spores and spines under their supreme late game army.
I'd like for map designers to explore more in this area of the games because there plenty of other consequences from a map change like this.
I also propose this kind of terrain, but it would be for SC3 like.It s also possible to create minerals which allow workers to gather let s say 60 minerals by travel. This kind of minerals could be apart of bases but defended outside of the mine, in a slow SC3 game-like. It seems that nobody read post....
|
On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages.
I agree soooo much with this post, thank you for this!
I especially cringe when I see people referring to the things they don't like as "fundamental design flaws" in an attempt to make their opinion appear more meaningful.
|
On March 26 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 05:40 RampancyTW wrote:On March 26 2022 05:21 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design" Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse. Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene. Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment. It’s no more of a dead horse than just arbitrarily nerfing or buffing races until we get parity. Outside of putting AlphaStar in charge of a Toss player, I don’t think any Protoss can come close to what a Serral can do with Zerg, or Maru can manage with Zerg. Trap at his best is mechanically excellent, maybe not quite as good as Maru or Serral, he just is stuck with his race. The race doesn’t allow it, it’s not how it’s fundamentally built. And it’s not an issue that can be fixed with unit numbers and build times, it’s a real fundamental design thing.
Except Trap has outplayed Maru and Serral in multiple series already. Lately he hasn't been able to do that because the balance shifted and he had a dip in form but that has nothing to do with "fundamental design issues"
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On March 29 2022 08:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2022 05:40 RampancyTW wrote:On March 26 2022 05:21 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design" Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse. Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene. Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment. It’s no more of a dead horse than just arbitrarily nerfing or buffing races until we get parity. Outside of putting AlphaStar in charge of a Toss player, I don’t think any Protoss can come close to what a Serral can do with Zerg, or Maru can manage with Zerg. Trap at his best is mechanically excellent, maybe not quite as good as Maru or Serral, he just is stuck with his race. The race doesn’t allow it, it’s not how it’s fundamentally built. And it’s not an issue that can be fixed with unit numbers and build times, it’s a real fundamental design thing. Except Trap has outplayed Maru and Serral in multiple series already. Lately he hasn't been able to do that because the balance shifted and he had a dip in form but that has nothing to do with "fundamental design issues"
He certainly has, he just doesn’t bludgeon opponents into dust with (among other skills they have) sheer raw mechanics like Serral and Maru can.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I like the mechanical aspects of the game but there’s a lot more that makes a ‘skilled’ player than mechanical chops that folks can sometimes downplay.
|
hmm maybe change the game back to sc1?
|
On March 30 2022 06:58 t2azor wrote:
hmm maybe change the game back to sc1?
Brood War's unit design and balance is honestly awful compared to SC2. Defilers are busted in ZvT. Reavers are busted in PvT to the point that Terran is forced to play mech. Tanks kill everything even faster. The damage type system is awful. The workers being different sizes is ridiculous. There are a lot of aspects of Brood War that are actually very unbalanced and you can chalk that up to there being no concept of esports beforehand. It was not designed to be what it became.
A lot of that is mitigated by the game overall being much more mechanically intensive to accomplish practically anything compared to SC2 leaving a lot more "low-hanging fruit" for differentiating skill levels when it comes to mechanics. Still, I think in most areas SC2 is far better than Brood War and generally a fairer game.
There are some virtues of Brood War over SC2 though. I think the pacing is probably better for one. The phases of SC2 games are very compressed and a lot of units have extremely small windows of usefulness compared to earlier iterations of SC2 or in Brood War. I think limiting the amount of units that can be selected at once would be interesting and provide some incentive for more complex attack patterns than deathballing, but would probably also require some other balance tweaks to compensate.
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On March 30 2022 08:39 honorablemacroterran wrote:Brood War's unit design and balance is honestly awful compared to SC2. Defilers are busted in ZvT. Reavers are busted in PvT to the point that Terran is forced to play mech. Tanks kill everything even faster. The damage type system is awful. The workers being different sizes is ridiculous. There are a lot of aspects of Brood War that are actually very unbalanced and you can chalk that up to there being no concept of esports beforehand. It was not designed to be what it became. A lot of that is mitigated by the game overall being much more mechanically intensive to accomplish practically anything compared to SC2 leaving a lot more "low-hanging fruit" for differentiating skill levels when it comes to mechanics. Still, I think in most areas SC2 is far better than Brood War and generally a fairer game. There are some virtues of Brood War over SC2 though. I think the pacing is probably better for one. The phases of SC2 games are very compressed and a lot of units have extremely small windows of usefulness compared to earlier iterations of SC2 or in Brood War. I think limiting the amount of units that can be selected at once would be interesting and provide some incentive for more complex attack patterns than deathballing, but would probably also require some other balance tweaks to compensate.
Heresy.
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
But nah I largely agree with that.
There is absurdly broken stuff in BW, but as you say the pacing, the difficulty of moving forces around etc, just the general difficulty of the game.
I mean to take one example, dark swarm versus Terran.
Sneak a defiler around to a base and Terran have almost no units that can do anything to units under the swarm.
There’s obviously a lot of other stuff that mitigates interactions
SC2 maybe only had forcefielding of ramps as something so ‘if I get into position and I do this I win’ that feels like genuinely without counterplay, until Legacy and biles.
With SC2 style control things like dark swarm, stasis would be beyond broken. Bio is considerably more potent due to how SC2 is built
Both bloody great games, I think whatever the next great RTS is will either be innovative and different, or in some way manage to keep the kinds of QOL UI things SC2 has, but find some way to replicate some of the things that made BW so compelling.
|
Widow mines Cargo size changed to 4.
Widow mine speed changed to 3.15. This is so stalkers can more easily catch them before they can escape
Medivac Boost unlocked after armory.
Forcefield changed to require 2 biles to break
Sentry starts with +2 armor, GS modes can be melee only +2 shields or +2 ranged only
Sentry has a siege mode.
Stalker shot speed increased by 50%
Marauder model size increased by 33%
|
The biggest change needed is remove or nerf recall. you could for example move it to sentries but nerf the recall size.
|
some random ideas off of my huge experience for ur considerashiun
- increase marine collision radius by 10%
- reduce bane splash radius by 10%
- add a *small* spash radius to stalker and hydra anti air attack
[ requires blink, hydra range research ]
- force field 50->25 mana, lasts for 11->6s.
[ maybe behaves like a building having 55 hp 3 armor, can be attacked ]
- prism +1 pickup range
- storm duration 2.85s->4s [ same dmg, but slower, more time to move out ]
i hate P air edition
- void ray prismatic alignment ability requires flux vanes
- interceptor costs 10/5. carrier costs 400/300.
carrier built with 3 interceptors, 5 already in the queue, no extra payment required (canceling would refund 50/25).
- carrier leash range 14->12
- viper can not abduct MF, no more easy -400/-400 memes, massive units pulled only half the way
some QoL
- move the res / pop / supply counters to the top of the minimap (needs new skins, i know it won't happen)
- (separate) hotkeys for all hatcheries, all nexi, all CCs, all rax, all facts, all starports, all buildings, all gates (not just wg), all starports, all robos, all queens, all overlords
- selectable color for 2nd opponent in 2v2 (both red now, would like to have red+purp)
- hotkeys for money feed in 2v2 (send all gas, send all money, send all res, send 100/50, send 500 min, send 500 gas)
- setting in 2v2 to allow ally to not only control allied units, but also to spend money (macro)
(any hotkey above left unbind does not produce a warning in the UI)
|
random shower thoughts (QOL buffs I think would be worth testing):
allow medivacs to stack heals on 1 target. I think that would help terran out after big baneling trades, where there are only a few marauders / marines left over (but lots of medivacs still in the air). just a nice wee situational buff
next one is probably too much work to implement, as it would be a whole new feature to the game: custom unit hotkey priority! give me the option to prioritize marines / marauders over ravens and ghosts. it would help a lot when you need to stim in an emergency:
box units + stim hotkey is waaaaaaaaay faster than:
box units + tab tab + stim
or
control click marines + shift + control click marauders + stim hotkey
|
Creep tumor should be created by queens directly, no free expansion from tumor itself.
|
On March 29 2022 04:34 SharkStarcraft wrote:
Nerf lurker speed, a siege unit shouldn't be that fast. Either that or nerf the dmg. A big creep nerf is also needed. Maybe even nerf banelings too.
More likely scenario: warp prisms now cost 500 minerals and the swarm host gets +100HP
The reason it's fast in BW is because it's not actually a siege unit in that game. The Lurker in BW has 6 range and cannons are range 7, which gives you the idea of what kind of unit they want Lurkers to be. Actually so much of it's power in BW comes from lower detection ranges. Even though an Overlord, Cannon or Turret can see pretty far, they only have a detection range of 7, which is the range that static defences can shoot. In sc2 the standard detection range is 11 which is so hugely different. So we can easily see why invisible units in SC2 are by default weaker. DT isn't weak, but they 1 shot workers which is way more powerful AND they have Blink.
If you look at the sc1 Lurker and the sc2 Lurker side by side, it's actually insane how much the SC2 Lurker is buffed in every aspect. The thing is in SC2 units move so smoothly as well that it's way easier to get on top of Lurkers as well so it's easy to see why they did this.
I wish that the spines wouldn't travel so damn fast, the hope was that we would see Stalkers, Marines micro to dance around the spines, but it never became a reality in sc2.
If the spines traveled slower they could increase the damage from 20+10vs armoured -> 30, so that they 2 shot Marines and do way better vs Zealot and Archons and even couple it with the removal of the instant-burrow upgrade and then from there see how much range we can take away without removing the unit from the ground. I think it should be a fast unit, but with 10 range it becomes broken, as you say.
|
Northern Ireland26462 Posts
On May 03 2022 00:38 SHODAN wrote:
random shower thoughts (QOL buffs I think would be worth testing):
allow medivacs to stack heals on 1 target. I think that would help terran out after big baneling trades, where there are only a few marauders / marines left over (but lots of medivacs still in the air). just a nice wee situational buff
next one is probably too much work to implement, as it would be a whole new feature to the game: custom unit hotkey priority! give me the option to prioritize marines / marauders over ravens and ghosts. it would help a lot when you need to stim in an emergency:
box units + stim hotkey is waaaaaaaaay faster than:
box units + tab tab + stim
or
control click marines + shift + control click marauders + stim hotkey
Considering how customisable hotkeys are, it’s ridiculous that priority isn’t customisable at all
Both your example and ‘oh I didn’t realise I had a single Templar accidentally boxed and missed all my forcefields’ are particularly aggravating examples.
It’s also only an issue with specific compositions, and it’s as much an issue with people who use separate keys, or manually box as it is to people F2ing, so it’s not like it is making the game more A-move friendly, given it’s priority to cycling active abilities.
Another QoL improvement, customise the UI elements while we’re at it.
Never mind actually keeping track of what you’re controlling and tracking in the play space, you have a minimap and timer at the exact opposite end of the screen from your resources/supply. Pull them to where you want.
It’s no great skill, or lack thereof to miss something on a minimap solely because the UI draws your eyes to the furthest possible position if you want to check other data.
And that’s just repositioning things a little, I think other things could improve QoL for people with vision issues, notably making the minimap bigger, or more customisable in terms of colours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
