EPTJust my two cents, what are your thoughts?
I know you're tired of it, but let's talk balance
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CicadaSC
United States1455 Posts
Just my two cents, what are your thoughts? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
| ||
|
Fubika24
37 Posts
And I think this is the pitfall of trying to have players balance the game, pro or otherwise. Not gonna see a lot of objective takes, when so much is on the line constantly. I dont see this council making protoss comparatively better than it is now any time soon. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On September 08 2023 00:14 Fubika24 wrote: The way I see it, they cant just go around nerfing of buffing a race, it has to come out to a zero sum game, otherwise the other 2/3rd of the council wont let it be implemented. And I think this is the pitfall of trying to have players balance the game, pro or otherwise. Not gonna see a lot of objective takes, when so much is on the line constantly. I dont see this council making protoss comparatively better than it is now any time soon. Anyone who understands this game knows this patch is definitely overall a buff for Protoss in both matchups (barring the controversial cyclone change which is unlikely to make it into the game). Whether it's enough of a buff is arguable, but you can't argue it's not a Protoss buff. And that's not my opinion, that's what multiple pros have stated. | ||
|
Tsubbi
Germany7967 Posts
TvZ: Big buff to Terran TvP: Minor buff to Protoss PvZ: Minor buff to Protoss You have to wonder how we got this initial starting point in the balance patch. If anything Terran was slightly overperforming and Protoss needs more help. The TvZ changes especially are very questionable. I agree that balancing should be a bigger focus than redesigning a unit that had a perfectly fine role in all matchups. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
| ||
|
JJH777
United States4378 Posts
Though I guess the real question is if Zergs can even consistently make it to that point of the game with worse banelings which is a valid concern. | ||
|
tigera6
3220 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1455 Posts
| ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
and Reynor bubble of perceived balance. Anyway who can take seriously the balancing of a game when it is balanced by people who stand a chance at making money from tournaments. No other serious organization does this. You can clearly see it in the patchnotes of the PTR , there is serious pushing for making mech super viable which is not a balancing issue whatsoever that is more design change and is far from top of the main concerns of the game right now and it is still getting major attention. Viper remains untouched and actually gets a buff another clear cut sign of incompetence in my personal opinion. This unit is grabbing units with ease that cost 400 minerals and 300 gas and it has still not been addressed, the insanity is actually real, I have been facepalming at this game ever since hots release at the absurdity that is SC2 balance and how easy especially Zerg has had it over all these years. Another good example of this is the Baneling, is has been nerfed several times now in the later stages of SC2 and it is still way to strong , what will it take for someone to call this out for what it is. Zerg and Terran get special treatment always has if it was intentional or not we will never know. Now before any of you mods Warn or Temp Ban me , I have only stated my personal opinion on someone's ability to execute something, I have not personally attacked anyone | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1102 Posts
On September 08 2023 23:26 Drahkn wrote: Harstem is delusional when it comes to balance in my personal opinion , he spends to much time in the Lambo,Serral and Reynor bubble of perceived balance. Anyway who can take seriously the balancing of a game when it is balanced by people who stand a chance at making money from tournaments. No other serious organization does this. You can clearly see it in the patchnotes of the PTR , there is serious pushing for making mech super viable which is not a balancing issue whatsoever that is more design change and is far from top of the main concerns of the game right now and it is still getting major attention. Viper remains untouched and actually gets a buff another clear cut sign of incompetence in my personal opinion. This unit is grabbing units with ease that cost 400 minerals and 300 gas and it has still not been addressed, the insanity is actually real, I have been facepalming at this game ever since hots release at the absurdity that is SC2 balance and how easy especially Zerg has had it over all these years. Another good example of this is the Baneling, is has been nerfed several times now in the later stages of SC2 and it is still way to strong , what will it take for someone to call this out for what it is. Zerg and Terran get special treatment always has if it was intentional or not we will never know. Now before any of you mods Warn or Temp Ban me , I have only stated my personal opinion on someone's ability to execute something, I have not personally attacked anyone If you already anticipate a temp ban, you might want to reconsider the way you articulate yourself. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On September 08 2023 23:26 Drahkn wrote: Harstem is delusional when it comes to balance in my personal opinion , he spends to much time in the Lambo,Serral and Reynor bubble of perceived balance. Anyway who can take seriously the balancing of a game when it is balanced by people who stand a chance at making money from tournaments. No other serious organization does this. You can clearly see it in the patchnotes of the PTR , there is serious pushing for making mech super viable which is not a balancing issue whatsoever that is more design change and is far from top of the main concerns of the game right now and it is still getting major attention. Viper remains untouched and actually gets a buff another clear cut sign of incompetence in my personal opinion. This unit is grabbing units with ease that cost 400 minerals and 300 gas and it has still not been addressed, the insanity is actually real, I have been facepalming at this game ever since hots release at the absurdity that is SC2 balance and how easy especially Zerg has had it over all these years. Another good example of this is the Baneling, is has been nerfed several times now in the later stages of SC2 and it is still way to strong , what will it take for someone to call this out for what it is. Zerg and Terran get special treatment always has if it was intentional or not we will never know. Now before any of you mods Warn or Temp Ban me , I have only stated my personal opinion on someone's ability to execute something, I have not personally attacked anyone The reason it's done the way it is, is because Blizzard just doesn't want to put any resources into it. But honestly I don't understand those calls for a professional, external team of balance designers. We used to have this, and that team was responsible for: -leaving Broodlord Infestor untouched for a year -hour long Swarmhost stalemates -Mass Raven turtle -mega buff to infested terrans leading to BL/Infestor 2.0 - again untouched for a year -Voidray buff into 1 year skytoss vs Queenwalk meta I think the status quo is preferable | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
On September 09 2023 01:27 Balnazza wrote: If you already anticipate a temp ban, you might want to reconsider the way you articulate yourself. Trust me mate , I've been banned because a mod did not like the "assumed tone" in my message although I broke no rules. | ||
|
Philippe
349 Posts
On September 09 2023 02:00 Drahkn wrote: Trust me mate , I've been banned because a mod did not like the "assumed tone" in my message although I broke no rules. When the tone is sometimes more important than the message itself, no surprises it may happen even when no technical rules are broken. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1102 Posts
On September 09 2023 02:00 Drahkn wrote: Trust me mate , I've been banned because a mod did not like the "assumed tone" in my message although I broke no rules. Well, as someone who was a Mod for almost ten years...I don't like your assumed tone either and would atleast give you a warning. So really mate, maybe try less "everyone is out to get Protoss" and "everyone but me has no idea about the game" kind of approach? Anyway, sorry for offtopic, finished now. | ||
|
Philippe
349 Posts
On September 08 2023 23:08 CicadaSC wrote: Is the balance council going to respond to this at all? Would love their thoughts. While there has been some more communication this hasn't been addressed at all. I don't really see the balance council explaining the full extent of their logic, like ever. This would open a worse can of worms than leaving everybody guess. One can just look at what happened when the current patch was first announced, tested, and then released back in the day. But a bit more of transparency wouldn't hurt. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
Whenever these threads pop up like "WHY DIDN'T THE BALANCE CABAL MAKE MY CHANGES THAT I WANTED?!!" it just sounds like any other whiny teenager who thinks they know better than an entire body of experts. "Didn't they even THINK about doing X, Y or Z?" I can assure you, if it was worth considering, they probably considered it. If you have a suggestion, by all means, post it, but maligning the council or questioning their motive is just disrespectful and childish. As to whether they err on the side of caution, I would imagine they err on the side of coming to a compromise as a council. Democracy, while perhaps the most fair form of decision making, cannot be and has never been considered the most expedient. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
"Didn't they even THINK about doing X, Y or Z?" I can assure you, if it was worth considering, they probably considered it. If you have a suggestion, by all means, post it, but maligning the council or questioning their motive is just disrespectful and childish. This is hopelessly naive. Any collaborative effort needs to account for competing interests or it's doomed to failure. Recognizing that some of the members of the balance council have a financial stake in the outcome isn't "maligning the council", it's recognizing reality. | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
On September 09 2023 02:26 Balnazza wrote: Well, as someone who was a Mod for almost ten years...I don't like your assumed tone either and would atleast give you a warning. So really mate, maybe try less "everyone is out to get Protoss" and "everyone but me has no idea about the game" kind of approach? Anyway, sorry for offtopic, finished now. Why do we have a forum if we can't disagree this is just absurd to me xD | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On September 09 2023 03:23 Athenau wrote: This is hopelessly naive. Any collaborative effort needs to account for competing interests or it's doomed to failure. Recognizing that some of the members of the balance council have a financial stake in the outcome isn't "maligning the council", it's recognizing reality. The statement "some of the members of the balance council have a financial stake in the outcome" may be technically correct, but to suggest that profit is their motive is disrespectful and childish. Like I said - maligning the council or questioning their motive is just disrespectful and childish. What exactly do you think is happening? The council is colluding to make one race more powerful than the others so that those players can win and then split the prize money amoung the rest of them? How exactly does this work? It doesn't make any logical sense. If you HONESTLY believe that the main reason members of the council are participating is profit rather than trying to pump life into a dying, orphaned game I believe you are foolish, jaded or delusional | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
The statement "some of the members of the balance council have a financial stake in the outcome" may be technically correct, but to suggest that profit is their motive is disrespectful and childish. Like I said - No, what's childish is to pretend that every member of the balance council is going to behave like a paragon of neutrality. What exactly do you think is happening? The council is colluding to make one race more powerful than the others so that those players can win and then split the prize money amoung the rest of them? How exactly does this work? It doesn't make any logical sense. If you HONESTLY believe that the main reason members of the council are participating is profit rather than trying to pump life into a dying, orphaned game I believe you are I don't know what prompted this fabulist strawman, because it's certainly nothing I said. It would behoove you to recognize the obvious, namely that the balance council is not a monolith, but a collection of individuals. Some may be motivated solely by a desire to improve the game. Others may be participating to promote a more favorable competitive environment for themselves. Still others may unconsciously conflate the former with the latter, because humans are predisposed to view something that benefits them as an unconditional good. None of this should be controversial, and anyone designing a workable balance proposal process needs to take these factors into account. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
Democracy, while perhaps the most fair form of decision making, cannot be and has never been considered the most expedient. If the council were a monolith, I would be concerned. I imagine, considering that they are (for the most part) humans, they will disagree about what is best for the game. The aim of the council, as I understand it, is to discuss these disagreements in committee and attempt to find balanced solutions to bring the game to a more balanced state. We should not assume the council are a bunch of dunderheads who don't know how democratic process or human brains work, nor should we assume that they are malicious actors with the sole purpose of championing their own pocketbooks. I would even go so far as to say that we should probably assume that the members of the council might be intelligent enough to understand the concerns you bring forward and take them into consideration. I am not saying that humans are infallable. I am saying that the members of the council are: 1. Attempting to make the game better, not worse 2. Probably acting in good faith to do so 3. Generally intelligent individuals in their own right 4. Acting democratically to come up with solutions Will their solutions be perfect every time? Of course not. They will probably never be perfect even once, such is the nature of existence outside the realm of Platonic Ideals. But we have a team of people who are clearly invested in trying to make SC2 a better game. Not only do they probably have enough professional ethos to try to make a balanced game anyways, it is also in their best interest to have a game that is balanced and fun to watch (encouraging viewership/playerbase). To suggest otherwise is foolish, jaded or delusional | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On September 09 2023 07:21 Arghmyliver wrote: I believe I described it as a democratic process - If the council were a monolith, I would be concerned. I imagine, considering that they are (for the most part) humans, they will disagree about what is best for the game. The aim of the council, as I understand it, is to discuss these disagreements in committee and attempt to find balanced solutions to bring the game to a more balanced state. We should not assume the council are a bunch of dunderheads who don't know how democratic process or human brains work, nor should we assume that they are malicious actors with the sole purpose of championing their own pocketbooks. I would even go so far as to say that we should probably assume that the members of the council might be intelligent enough to understand the concerns you bring forward and take them into consideration. I am not saying that humans are infallable. I am saying that the members of the council are: 1. Attempting to make the game better, not worse 2. Probably acting in good faith to do so 3. Generally intelligent individuals in their own right 4. Acting democratically to come up with solutions Will their solutions be perfect every time? Of course not. They will probably never be perfect even once, such is the nature of existence outside the realm of Platonic Ideals. But we have a team of people who are clearly invested in trying to make SC2 a better game. Not only do they probably have enough professional ethos to try to make a balanced game anyways, it is also in their best interest to have a game that is balanced and fun to watch (encouraging viewership/playerbase). To suggest otherwise is I don't know how many different ways I need to say the same thing. The _point_ is to design the _process_ such that it accounts for individuals that don't act to maximize overall utility, rather than adopt the fantastical notion that everyone is going to play nice. Simply invoking "democracy" doesn't do that. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
Edit: I also think that it's disrespectful to suggest the council members are secretly trying to come up with ways to make their own race op so they can win more. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On September 09 2023 08:19 Arghmyliver wrote: You are just talking past me at this point. I'm literally saying democracy isn't perfect and we shouldn't expect it to be. People post as if they have the ideal solution and if the balance council would only listen to them everything would be perfect. We can't expect that and we shouldn't. Any rational individual can come to this conclusion and if we assume, as we should, that the council are mostly rational actors we should assume they can come to this conclusion as well. I actually think it's reasonable to assume that the council will "play nice" with each other and not scream incoherently about how their race is underpowered and everyone else needs to listen to them. I'm not interested in debating spherical cow models of human behavior. Feel free to have that conversation with someone else. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
Edit: Or better yet, devise and describe a method of decision making that is perfectly infallable. The world could certainly use it. | ||
|
athibaui
4 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5214 Posts
On September 09 2023 01:58 Charoisaur wrote: The reason it's done the way it is, is because Blizzard just doesn't want to put any resources into it. But honestly I don't understand those calls for a professional, external team of balance designers. We used to have this, and that team was responsible for: -leaving Broodlord Infestor untouched for a year -hour long Swarmhost stalemates -Mass Raven turtle -mega buff to infested terrans leading to BL/Infestor 2.0 - again untouched for a year -Voidray buff into 1 year skytoss vs Queenwalk meta I think the status quo is preferable This pretty much sums up the history of SC2, just forgot to mention to Mothership Core, Widow Mines and Vipers. Two of those three are still plaguing the game. So now they just let the community decide, as if the community knows what they want. That's like asking people to design pharmaceutical drugs because the industry professionals are bad at it. The results are guaranteed to be bad. Game design is hard, Blizzard lucked out with Brood War since weird things like putting an Overlord in a group with Mutas helped them. They didn't get as lucky with Browder and Kim messing around with SC2, and it has been downhill since. As someone who researches and follows game design, the past 10 years we've seen incredible leaps in game design, and companies have been very open about what works and what doesn't. Blizzard ignored all of it, and actually went in the opposite direction. It was incredibly shocking to me. Just read through this from Riot from 2010... https://lawofgamedesign.com/2014/02/20/zileas-list-of-game-design-anti-fun-patterns/ If only Blizzard read and understood that. But honestly, Dustin Browder and David Kim at no one point showed anymore understanding of game design than I do of designing pharmaceutical drugs, their ideas were random and asinine. The Warhound never should have left a designers head... nor the Mothership Core and Photon Overcharge... just like many of things they ultimately removed from the game. They violated basic principles of modern game design. | ||
|
jodljodl
140 Posts
I think one of the main problems with Protoss is the lack of reliability of two important abilities, namely Storm and Nova, respectively of two important units, namely the High Templar and the Disruptor. In my eyes, the lack of reliability of Storm/Nova is due to the fact that its main effect, i.e. damage, is not immediate and that there are effective ways of countering it, i.e. dodging. My idea for solving this problem is to reduce the effect of counterplay by making the effect more immediate: Ideas I have in this regard:
Another idea to make the high templar more usable and reliable in general wld be:
...the high templar feels to me like a hit or miss unit: storm hits, then it did it job, storm misses it is pretty literally dead meat more often than not. By reducing the morph time thus enabeling the morphed archon to actively participate in fights more often could reduce this feeling and increase the reliability of the High Templar. Thanks for your time & have a nice day all  | ||
|
xPrimuSx
92 Posts
1. Change storm damage from 10 damage tics of 8 tics total (80 damage) to 0 35 0 25 0 15 0 5 (still 80 total). You can keep the coding that ensures any target affected by storm gets at least 2 tics. The initial damage would go up from 20 to 35 so you get more an impact from storming something but it also increases to power of baiting and dodging storm as well as diving in on an expiring storm 2. Change Nova from going full burst to having a smaller burst and applying a damage over time effect. If the purification nova touches an enemy unit it deals 7 damage every 0.5 second for 2 seconds. The Nova itself would have it's burst damage reduced from 145 to 100. Overall this would be a reduction in damage of 17. Numbers are of course subject to balancing but it's just an idea As to High Templar being overly weak, yeah that's definitely a thing. Comparing Ghosts, Infestors, and High Templars Cost: The one area HTs come out ahead. HTs cost a total (going with gas = 2x minerals), 350 resources while Ghost and Infestor both cost 400 Speed: HTs are a big loser here. At 2.82, they have the same speed as a burrowed Infestor off creep (and this is only after they received a buff, they were even slower before!). On Creep a burrowed Infestor is faster. On or off creep an unburrowed Infestor or Ghost are both faster. Supposedly this is balanced by having an auto-attack to make them easier to control, but I'd rather have their speed improved Health: HT's have the lowest health total at 80, Infestor and Ghost are both higher at 90 and 100 respectively Defensive movement: Ghosts cloak and Infestors get burrow move. Both are able to move around obscured from the enemy. HTs actually leave a minor trail behind them while also being the slowest of them all. Now I like the effect so would not suggest removing it, but giving them some kind of defensive movement ability would be nice. AOE spell special ability: All 3 units have an AOE ability with Ghost and Infestors both getting some additional affects to their abilities. EMP reveals cloaked units and drains energy. Fungal reveals both cloaked and burrowed units in addition to its slow. Storm has no such benefit only dealing damage which is not instant like EMP or guaranteed like Fungal making it less consistent than either other spell. It is worth noting that EMP damage is faction specific and otherwise it's an anti-caster ability so it having some disproportionate damage is somewhat acceptable. The only major thing I'd say from this is to equalize the special benefit and have all 3 spells reveal any obscured unit and consider the fact that storm persists after it is cast it's "special ability" Single target spell functionality: All 3 have a single target special ability that is good to remove troublesome units. Steady Targeting is great at killing things, though only against biological units (considering it's other spell is faction specific against Protoss, some disproportionate effectiveness is again understandable). Neural instantly removes a troublesome unit and turns it into an ally, though only temporarily. Feedback negates a spellcaster and with the reduction of units with energy in the game it gets progressively less useful as there are less and less troublesome units it can get rid of. Additionally with the damage nerf it doesn't actually kill anything, it just removes it from the field for a bit, factoring in all Zerg units heal and Terran units can be healed or repaired. Snipe kills things and neural leaves units vulnerable to being killed by your army as it can't fight back and will eat damage from its former allies while controlled. Ghost is the obvious winner here costing the same resources as an Infestor but being faster at base (and only slightly slower than an Infestor on creep), having more health, having auto-attack, and being better at killing/doing damage to the other 2 factions. The one big benefit an Infestor has is that with the Ghost cloak nerf an Infestor can spend a much longer period of time obscured from the enemy and needing detection to find. As to the other two I would argue HTs are the weakest with Infestor in the middle. | ||
|
Nicholas8
2 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1455 Posts
| ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1455 Posts
On September 20 2023 01:59 Whatson wrote: Or, they just recognize that different groups of players will bitch and complain no matter what they try to do. That's the completely wrong mindset. You can't just say people are going to complain no matter what because that's not true. There are plenty of things the community agrees on I'll list a few. -Protoss weak at pro level (needs buff) -Widow mine does not need unburrow buff -Cyclone didn't need a rework -ghost could probably use tweaking Again I'll reiterate. Priority should be get Protoss in a playable state where they are winning just as much as the Zergs and Terrans and THEN focus on experimental changes and redesigns. | ||
|
Snakestyle1
43 Posts
On September 20 2023 02:29 CicadaSC wrote: That's the completely wrong mindset. You can't just say people are going to complain no matter what because that's not true. There are plenty of things the community agrees on I'll list a few. -Protoss weak at pro level (needs buff) -Widow mine does not need unburrow buff -Cyclone didn't need a rework -ghost could probably use tweaking Again I'll reiterate. Priority should be get Protoss in a playable state where they are winning just as much as the Zergs and Terrans and THEN focus on experimental changes and redesigns. Can we be real for a sec? With the current pro player pool, if you make protoss able to win as much as terran and zerg in top tournaments, you will absolutely destroy the game for everyone else and actually make it imbalanced. Go look at top GM in both EU and NA, look at the amount of races they play against. You see stuff like 250 protoss, 100 terran, 50 zerg, or similar numbers. WIth how much better serral and reynor are, if you make the current protoss pros win as much as them, what do you think the ladder numbers are gonna be ? 250 protoss 50 terran 10 zerg? How is that not going to kill the game? | ||
|
bulldozer06701
114 Posts
On September 20 2023 03:50 Snakestyle1 wrote: Can we be real for a sec? With the current pro player pool, if you make protoss able to win as much as terran and zerg in top tournaments, you will absolutely destroy the game for everyone else and actually make it imbalanced. Go look at top GM in both EU and NA, look at the amount of races they play against. You see stuff like 250 protoss, 100 terran, 50 zerg, or similar numbers. WIth how much better serral and reynor are, if you make the current protoss pros win as much as them, what do you think the ladder numbers are gonna be ? 250 protoss 50 terran 10 zerg? How is that not going to kill the game? I think so too. The ladder will be fucked. A lot of big dog protoss are retired or in military. Who are the Serral/Maru/Reynor etc of Protoss right now? Hero, Maxpax? Maxpax doesn't even do offline. | ||
|
angry_maia
301 Posts
On September 20 2023 04:38 bulldozer06701 wrote: I think so too. The ladder will be fucked. A lot of big dog protoss are retired or in military. Who are the Serral/Maru/Reynor etc of Protoss right now? Hero, Maxpax? Maxpax doesn't even do offline. I agree with this but still think Protoss needs some sort of buff at the highest level. For this reason, I think all changes should be towards making units more microable but less strong when strictly a-moved. | ||
|
THERIDDLER
Canada116 Posts
On September 20 2023 03:50 Snakestyle1 wrote: Can we be real for a sec? With the current pro player pool, if you make protoss able to win as much as terran and zerg in top tournaments, you will absolutely destroy the game for everyone else and actually make it imbalanced. Go look at top GM in both EU and NA, look at the amount of races they play against. You see stuff like 250 protoss, 100 terran, 50 zerg, or similar numbers. WIth how much better serral and reynor are, if you make the current protoss pros win as much as them, what do you think the ladder numbers are gonna be ? 250 protoss 50 terran 10 zerg? How is that not going to kill the game? The game is already beyond broken because the intern gave 20 buffs to protoss to accommodate for the player pool. If you search through OP's twitter you can litearlly find a tweet between him and special where he whines that sc2 should be balanced around the playerpool so that ppl like maxhax can have the same tournament winnings as serral. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On September 20 2023 06:06 THERIDDLER wrote: The game is already beyond broken because the intern gave 20 buffs to protoss to accommodate for the player pool. If you search through OP's twitter you can litearlly find a tweet between him and special where he whines that sc2 should be balanced around the playerpool so that ppl like maxhax can have the same tournament winnings as serral. I must have missed those 20 buffs. In the last patches Protoss got mostly nerfed | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2521 Posts
On September 10 2023 08:24 BronzeKnee wrote: This pretty much sums up the history of SC2, just forgot to mention to Mothership Core, Widow Mines and Vipers. Two of those three are still plaguing the game. So now they just let the community decide, as if the community knows what they want. That's like asking people to design pharmaceutical drugs because the industry professionals are bad at it. The results are guaranteed to be bad. Game design is hard, Blizzard lucked out with Brood War since weird things like putting an Overlord in a group with Mutas helped them. They didn't get as lucky with Browder and Kim messing around with SC2, and it has been downhill since. As someone who researches and follows game design, the past 10 years we've seen incredible leaps in game design, and companies have been very open about what works and what doesn't. Blizzard ignored all of it, and actually went in the opposite direction. It was incredibly shocking to me. Just read through this from Riot from 2010... https://lawofgamedesign.com/2014/02/20/zileas-list-of-game-design-anti-fun-patterns/ If only Blizzard read and understood that. But honestly, Dustin Browder and David Kim at no one point showed anymore understanding of game design than I do of designing pharmaceutical drugs, their ideas were random and asinine. The Warhound never should have left a designers head... nor the Mothership Core and Photon Overcharge... just like many of things they ultimately removed from the game. They violated basic principles of modern game design. Curious, what of modern game design would you suggest Blizzard use for sc2? Riot's theory on anti-fun is all well and good, but it's hardly robust and hardly a dominant theory - even Riot has strayed away from it over the years; 'anti-fun' often just turns in to 'not-fun'. Notable growth in game dev otherwise that spring to mind are abusing dopamine cycles (loot boxes, mobile games) and competitive approachability (fortnite's bot lobbies, HeroesOTS 'casual' moba, mobile pubg etc) both of which I'd argue Blizzard has attempted to incorporate into Sc2... It isn't like there's a treatise on how to properly design an RTS in the last 20 years. You say game design is hard and I agree. I just disagree that Blizzard went against any grains and failed because of it. | ||
|
THERIDDLER
Canada116 Posts
On September 20 2023 07:56 Charoisaur wrote: I must have missed those 20 buffs. In the last patches Protoss got mostly nerfed Sentry itself has 4 (build time, speed, guardian shield, halluc). See if you can find the other 16, your couple of protoss brain cells can do it I believe in you!. User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Elantris
66 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On September 20 2023 12:23 THERIDDLER wrote: Sentry itself has 4 (build time, speed, guardian shield, halluc). See if you can find the other 16, your couple of protoss brain cells can do it I believe in you!. User was warned for this post. You can't honestly be serious, the sentry buffs are minuscule compared to the nerfs Protoss got (battery nerf, Disruptor nerf) and the buffs terran got (Liberator and Raven buff) Also I play terran so I don't have "Protoss brain cells" | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1455 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24378 Posts
On September 20 2023 09:16 Fleetfeet wrote: Curious, what of modern game design would you suggest Blizzard use for sc2? Riot's theory on anti-fun is all well and good, but it's hardly robust and hardly a dominant theory - even Riot has strayed away from it over the years; 'anti-fun' often just turns in to 'not-fun'. Notable growth in game dev otherwise that spring to mind are abusing dopamine cycles (loot boxes, mobile games) and competitive approachability (fortnite's bot lobbies, HeroesOTS 'casual' moba, mobile pubg etc) both of which I'd argue Blizzard has attempted to incorporate into Sc2... It isn't like there's a treatise on how to properly design an RTS in the last 20 years. You say game design is hard and I agree. I just disagree that Blizzard went against any grains and failed because of it. If they did transgress particular modern norms of sound game design I’d be interested in hearing specifically how too. Honestly a few missteps aside after a certain point I can only criticise design too much, because one either fully redesigns the entire game, or keeps fudging on the foundation that already exists. IMO the biggest fundamental problem with SC2 is, in context the frequently agreed ‘best-designed’ race is the worst-designed in the overall context. Terran, especially bio is too strong and too microable. It is fun to micro bio, it is not fun to be kited indefinitely when you can’t do anything. Warp gate is the other big one for me, but honestly I think it ranks second. The game needs a lot of reliable anti-bio weapons, and unreliable ones that are hugely potent. And it just has so many knock-on effects. I like asymmetry, I basically exclusively play the micro/glass cannon army in any RTS, despite the years of abuse I got for playing Nelf in WC3 :p But this level of it? We can contrast WoL with now, a much more potent and integral Collosus that does reliable damage, versus the current state of the game where the very potent, but much less reliable disruptor is there. The former isn’t particularly fun to do, the latter is more so but very inconsistent. PvT works out as a dance not of all sorts of micro and manouvering but does the Toss nail its AoE, or does the Terran dodge. Whereas in WC3, higher time to kill also factors in but say Nelf archers are squishy, slow and don’t nuke everything in seconds, so you can get on top of them with melee units, especially with speed scrolls. As to your latter point, designers have got a lot better at designing dopamine dungeons, it’s pretty unarguable and it’s pretty detrimental to other areas, or indeed users in many cases. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2521 Posts
And yeah, dopamine dungeons ARE bad. Finding that balance is important, just in a lot of cases devs aren't incentivized to. | ||
| ||
