EPTProtoss representation in tourney have been a hot topic since the last years, do you think that dragoon could help Protoss in being more competitive at top level ?
Dragoon in SC2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Vision_
849 Posts
Protoss representation in tourney have been a hot topic since the last years, do you think that dragoon could help Protoss in being more competitive at top level ? | ||
|
kAra
Germany1353 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
| ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
Since they would be super-smooth to control in SC2, that factor is gone. Source: Dude trust me. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
| ||
|
kAra
Germany1353 Posts
Role: The Dragoon is a versatile ranged unit effective against both air and ground targets. It is commonly used in various strategies, providing strong mid-game support and flexibility in engagements. Strengths: Dragoons have good range and can kite well against slower units. They are strong against early Terran mech units (like Vultures and Tanks) and are decent against Zerg’s Hydralisks and Mutalisks when microed well. Implications in StarCraft II: Comparison to Stalker: In StarCraft II, the Dragoon's role was somewhat replaced by the Stalker. Stalkers are more mobile due to the Blink ability, which allows them to teleport short distances, giving them higher micro potential and allowing them to be used for harassment and tactical engagements. Potential Impact: If the Dragoon were to be introduced into StarCraft II, it would offer a more durable but less mobile alternative to the Stalker. Dragoons could potentially help Protoss in specific matchups, especially if they were balanced to fill a unique role that current units don't cover. For example, they could be designed to be stronger in straight-up engagements against Terran bio or Zerg ground armies, providing a sturdier mid-game unit than Stalkers or Immortals. Competitiveness at the Top Level: Balance Considerations: Introducing the Dragoon into StarCraft II would require significant balance adjustments. The current unit compositions and dynamics are finely tuned, so any new unit would need to be carefully integrated to avoid disrupting the balance. Meta Impact: If Dragoons were balanced correctly, they could make Protoss more competitive by offering different strategic options. For example, they might provide a more reliable backbone in certain compositions, particularly against Zerg mid-game aggression or Terran mech. In conclusion, while Dragoons were a key unit for Protoss in Brood War, their introduction into StarCraft II would require thoughtful design to enhance Protoss competitiveness at the top level. It could be a valuable addition if it offers unique benefits that align with current game dynamics. | ||
|
Radioteddy
6 Posts
On August 18 2024 16:30 kAra wrote: Dragoon in Brood War Role: The Dragoon is a versatile ranged unit effective against both air and ground targets. It is commonly used in various strategies, providing strong mid-game support and flexibility in engagements. Strengths: Dragoons have good range and can kite well against slower units. They are strong against early Terran mech units (like Vultures and Tanks) and are decent against Zerg’s Hydralisks and Mutalisks when microed well. Implications in StarCraft II: Comparison to Stalker: In StarCraft II, the Dragoon's role was somewhat replaced by the Stalker. Stalkers are more mobile due to the Blink ability, which allows them to teleport short distances, giving them higher micro potential and allowing them to be used for harassment and tactical engagements. Potential Impact: If the Dragoon were to be introduced into StarCraft II, it would offer a more durable but less mobile alternative to the Stalker. Dragoons could potentially help Protoss in specific matchups, especially if they were balanced to fill a unique role that current units don't cover. For example, they could be designed to be stronger in straight-up engagements against Terran bio or Zerg ground armies, providing a sturdier mid-game unit than Stalkers or Immortals. Competitiveness at the Top Level: Balance Considerations: Introducing the Dragoon into StarCraft II would require significant balance adjustments. The current unit compositions and dynamics are finely tuned, so any new unit would need to be carefully integrated to avoid disrupting the balance. Meta Impact: If Dragoons were balanced correctly, they could make Protoss more competitive by offering different strategic options. For example, they might provide a more reliable backbone in certain compositions, particularly against Zerg mid-game aggression or Terran mech. In conclusion, while Dragoons were a key unit for Protoss in Brood War, their introduction into StarCraft II would require thoughtful design to enhance Protoss competitiveness at the top level. It could be a valuable addition if it offers unique benefits that align with current game dynamics. Thanks chatGPT -_- | ||
|
kAra
Germany1353 Posts
a quality topic deserves a quality answer | ||
|
jodljodl
135 Posts
On August 18 2024 16:55 kAra wrote: its not wrong though. a quality topic deserves a quality answer thank you for making me chuckle <3 | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
| ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 18 2024 21:49 Vision_ wrote: In any case, starcraft 2 has to be patched because of Protoss imbalance at pro level Are you familiar with Marcus Porcius Cato? | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom811 Posts
If we get some normal maps then it might become clearer what could or should be changed. A map-pool of only Overgrowth (and clones therefore) would do it!  In all seriousness, the answer to Protoss woes isn't making Protoss even more immobile by adding a unit like the Dragoon. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
Beefy, relatively low DPS units melt to more fragile, but high DPS units as things scale up. You’ll just end up with a unit that is slightly better at A-moving than stalkers, but has none of the advantages blink gives you. Be it poking and blinking back while retaining them, or aggressively blinking to snipe priority targets. We’ve known since WoL that outside of wonky scenarios, Protoss is incredibly reliant on AoE to offset that their core units melt late game. Adding another core gateway unit may have some early game utility but it won’t change that fundamental aspect of the matchups, especially TvP | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 18 2024 18:50 ejozl wrote: That would make herO the Serral of Protoss, so the cabal obviously won't allow it. 4-0 in final, it looks like a humiliation | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
But what should they bring which protoss does not already have? You would need to make them absurdly OP to make them viable, one-shotting roaches and the HP of Ultras. I don't think anyone wants that. The core issue with Protoss is Warpgate. As long as it exists, gateway units can't be too strong, as it would break the game. The choice was made, but finding a good place to be at the top level for the race has been tricky. Afaik, their succeses have mostly come of the back of very strong timing attacks. | ||
|
Maksim2010
35 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3341 Posts
On August 19 2024 00:23 WombaT wrote: Dragoons would just add another unit that has similar characteristics to their existing roster, with the commensurate weaknesses. Beefy, relatively low DPS units melt to more fragile, but high DPS units as things scale up. You’ll just end up with a unit that is slightly better at A-moving than stalkers, but has none of the advantages blink gives you. Be it poking and blinking back while retaining them, or aggressively blinking to snipe priority targets. We’ve known since WoL that outside of wonky scenarios, Protoss is incredibly reliant on AoE to offset that their core units melt late game. Adding another core gateway unit may have some early game utility but it won’t change that fundamental aspect of the matchups, especially TvP The wargate mechanics prevents decent all around solid gateway units anyway | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
Then with 2 kind of Queens, one sister for injection and the other mutation for tumors, you could add a spell to enhance each zerg units on his best, which could for example, allow mutalisks stronger regeneration, ultralisks could gain a bonus against building, broodlings last longer, etc... This idea could improve Zerg specialized units and ask to players the best use of each units in different scenaris Then server patch isn t used indeed ? If pros protoss can win tourney with slower fight, then necessarily it shows that stalkers are too much on the edge of the balance and need to be tweaked. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 19 2024 03:31 WGT-Baal wrote: The wargate mechanics prevents decent all around solid gateway units anyway Yeah this is absolutely at the core of it! I do genuinely think SC2 is miraculously well balanced considering warpgate exists. I think it’s a poor fundamental design decision absolutely, but within that giant constraint the balance is remarkable, albeit imperfect. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 19 2024 03:31 WGT-Baal wrote: The wargate mechanics prevents decent all around solid gateway units anyway Always has, always will. As long as Warp Gate is a core mechanic, balancing Protoss is impossible. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On August 18 2024 22:25 Balnazza wrote: Are you familiar with Marcus Porcius Cato? Imba ghost delenda est On the subject of dragoon, it's kind of useless to talk about balance. Obviously, you can't just parachute dragoon into the games, things would have to be rebalanced, meta would shift, maps would maybe get revised... And while the dragoon looks cool, it's kind of a boring unit, stalkers are much more fun with blink as an ability. So no, no need for dragoons. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 19 2024 11:35 Nakajin wrote: Imba ghost delenda est On the subject of dragoon, it's kind of useless to talk about balance. Obviously, you can't just parachute dragoon into the games, things would have to be rebalanced, meta would shift, maps would maybe get revised... And while the dragoon looks cool, it's kind of a boring unit, stalkers are much more fun with blink as an ability. So no, no need for dragoons. It would be hype AF to hear ‘I have returned’ again though I gotta say | ||
|
CMS_Flash
Hong Kong47 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 19 2024 15:43 CMS_Flash wrote: What about Reaver LOL? Yea because what Protoss needs is yet another slow, splash damage unit off of the Robotics Facility. They don't have enough of those already. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 19 2024 15:53 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea because what Protoss needs is yet another slow, splash damage unit off of the Robotics Facility. They don't have enough of those already. It’s so fucking cool though  I’d say easily top 10 RTS unit going. I imagine it would have been in the game from WoL if not for being impossible to balance. They would absolutely decimate with SC2’s clumping, or alternatively you’d have to nerf them so much for that reason that they can’t pack much of a punch. Granted it still mystifies me to this day that the Protoss, with all their technological wizardry designed and put into production what is essentially a robotic slug. ‘Why don’t we make something that moves fast?’ ‘No you idiot, it has to move slowly. Incredibly slowly! Don’t you see?’ | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 19 2024 16:21 WombaT wrote: It’s so fucking cool though I’d say easily top 10 RTS unit going. I imagine it would have been in the game from WoL if not for being impossible to balance. They would absolutely decimate with SC2’s clumping, or alternatively you’d have to nerf them so much for that reason that they can’t pack much of a punch. Granted it still mystifies me to this day that the Protoss, with all their technological wizardry designed and put into production what is essentially a robotic slug. ‘Why don’t we make something that moves fast?’ ‘No you idiot, it has to move slowly. Incredibly slowly! Don’t you see?’ What I've learned about Protoss lore is that their thinking doesn't make sense except if you treat them like a bunch of superstituous hyper religious....zealots. Then all of a sudden their thinking and their tech makes sense. Every time there's some gap in their logic or their strategic thinking it's because their religion deems they fight or behave that way. It would be shameful, heretical, dishonorable etc. etc. otherwise. The same sort of thing is common in Warhammer 40k. Everytime you stop to think about how illogical the Imperium is you have to remember it's a massively corrupt beaurucratic state that is hyper religious and superstitious on top of that. There isn't a lot of 100 percent rational thinking going on in there. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
All units in SC2 are different and by the way some are better, the only thing to consider is how deep Blizzard have push some units to a niche. So if people say, nah dragoons are bad, then my answer is : "you are playing to SC2 since a dozen year with a ghost who one shot unit while his supply cost is the same than roachs or hydralisks" If you apply the philosophy of nah, it s just shit then, you have no reason to play with other units than ghosts. You can answer that roachs are shit, that s true because they are cheap but hydras looks now to cannon fooder compared to ghost, which is an issue considering the debate of hydralisks being T1 or T2 unit. Yet another reason to complain, people want to play protoss without a solid anti air, keep going, i won t believe a pro protoss will rise soon. | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
And what has been suggested a hundred times past years, move warpgate as a lategame protoss tech so gateway units could be buffed a bit. | ||
|
johnnyh123
89 Posts
Would love to see Protoss competing well, but I just don't think changing warpgate will be feasible considering all the history and context. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 19 2024 20:54 Vision_ wrote: It s funny because if one man says "no really, dragoons aren t balanced, they are shit compared to roachs, marauders or immortals" then all people seems to admit that units MUST be consider as equal among them. All units in SC2 are different and by the way some are better, the only thing to consider is how deep Blizzard have push some units to a niche. So if people say, nah dragoons are bad, then my answer is : "you are playing to SC2 since a dozen year with a ghost who one shot unit while his supply cost is the same than roachs or hydralisks" If you apply the philosophy of nah, it s just shit then, you have no reason to play with other units than ghosts. You can answer that roachs are shit, that s true because they are cheap but hydras looks now to cannon fooder compared to ghost, which is an issue considering the debate of hydralisks being T1 or T2 unit. Yet another reason to complain, people want to play protoss without a solid anti air, keep going, i won t believe a pro protoss will rise soon. I really have trouble deciphering what that is supposed to mean, but I just remember your overall perception and goal of these questions: You don't want a balanced game, but a "fun" game. And admittingly, from experience in the Co-Op, Dragoons are fun. They are also completly useless for what Protoss needs (because honestly, what Protoss needs the most are better players at the S-Tier...). As all the other people here have pointed out, Dragoons wouldn't fit any role in the Protoss strategy. They are an awkward step between a Stalker and an Immortal I would say. But you can't make them just Stalkers 2.0, because why would you use a unit that might hit slightly harder, but can't Blink? Terrans use Ghosts in lategame not because they are OP (in a "can't beat this"-sense), but because they counter everything, so they fill the center-piece role you can build your army around. | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
On August 20 2024 06:25 johnnyh123 wrote: Warpgate is one of SC2 Protoss defining mechanisms though. Changing it will require the biggest revamp in SC2 for the race, bigger than jumping from 1 expansion to the next (WoL > HotS > LotV). Would love to see Protoss competing well, but I just don't think changing warpgate will be feasible considering all the history and context. Maybe thats exactly what this game needs. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 20 2024 06:25 johnnyh123 wrote: Warpgate is one of SC2 Protoss defining mechanisms though. Changing it will require the biggest revamp in SC2 for the race, bigger than jumping from 1 expansion to the next (WoL > HotS > LotV). Would love to see Protoss competing well, but I just don't think changing warpgate will be feasible considering all the history and context. It's a bad mechanic. It doesn't matter how "defining" it is. It's a bad mechanic that makes balancing the race impossible to do. We've kept it for as long as we have because of this irrational attachment to how "cool" it is and Protoss has ALWAYS been a problematic race to balance at the pro level as a result. If people would rather keep Warp Gate than get rid of it even though it's a harmful mechanic. Then those people are not serious about seeing Protoss actually be fixed. Unfortunately, I believe a majority of players fall into this category. They'd rather have Protoss be forever imbalanced because of this mechanic than accept that this mechanic needs to be removed, and as long as that is true, Protoss will forever remain a race that can't be balanced at the top level. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On August 20 2024 07:10 Vindicare605 wrote: It's a bad mechanic. It doesn't matter how "defining" it is. It's a bad mechanic that makes balancing the race impossible to do. We've kept it for as long as we have because of this irrational attachment to how "cool" it is and Protoss has ALWAYS been a problematic race to balance at the pro level as a result. If people would rather keep Warp Gate than get rid of it even though it's a harmful mechanic. Then those people are not serious about seeing Protoss actually be fixed. Unfortunately, I believe a majority of players fall into this category. They'd rather have Protoss be forever imbalanced because of this mechanic than accept that this mechanic needs to be removed, and as long as that is true, Protoss will forever remain a race that can't be balanced at the top level. Well it's kind of the base of the game, it's like removing creep spread, capping hatch at 3 larva, or making the rax, the factory and the starport a single building. Removing warp gate come fairly close to deleting a race from the gate and replacing it with another race, idk why we would do that 14 years deep. Especially over extreamly theoretical speculation that the end result would be a more balanced game at the high level. Which is a moot discussion since we have no idea of what a non-warp gate protoss in SC2 looks like. Now, some people may not like Warp Gate as a mechanic, and that's fine, but removing warp gate to fix balance is like getting stuck on a puzzle and rather than try to solve it, you throw it away and take out another puzzle hopping it will be easier to solve. It's much easier to make protoss stronger at the top level than to redesign and rebalance an hypothetical protoss race without wrap gate. I also really don't think protoss as always been problematic, it's more that people have always like to complain, you could say the same about zerg (and in part about terran - coincidently the most played race for the longuest time). | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 20 2024 07:57 Nakajin wrote: Well it's kind of the base of the game, it's like removing creep spread, capping hatch at 3 larva, or making the rax, the factory and the starport a single building. Removing warp gate come fairly close to deleting a race from the gate and replacing it with another race, idk why we would do that 14 years deep. Especially over extreamly theoretical speculation that the end result would be a more balanced game at the high level. Which is a moot discussion since we have no idea of what a non-warp gate protoss in SC2 looks like. Now, some people may not like Warp Gate as a mechanic, and that's fine, but removing warp gate to fix balance is like getting stuck on a puzzle and rather than try to solve it, you throw it away and take out another puzzle hopping it will be easier to solve. It's much easier to make protoss stronger at the top level than to redesign and rebalance an hypothetical protoss race without wrap gate. I also really don't think protoss as always been problematic, it's more that people have always like to complain, you could say the same about zerg (and in part about terran - coincidently the most played race for the longuest time). I wanted to remove Warp Gate back in 2013. The community has actively been attempting to fix the problems it causes since at least that long, community balance mods from at least as far back as that have been attempting to fix the core problem. Blizzard themselves have repeatedly in every Protoss rework, nerfed the power of early game Warp Gate tech as a balance for buffing Protoss in other aspects of the game always in an attempt to make Protoss less of a one dimensional "timing attack" or "Warp Gate All in" race. This isn't theoretical. This is literally the history of the race in Starcraft 2. We've had LAUGHABLY bad attempts to fix their core issues like the addition of the Mothership Core that were so hated by everyone in the community that it was eventually removed, and the race hasn't recovered its winrate since. The race has always been a problem, and Warp Gate has always been why. This isn't a new issue, this isn't hypothetical. There is now 14 years and counting of evidence that continues to prove this point. But as long as people want to keep sticking their fingers in their ears about it, the race will never get better. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
You also remove a big chunk of the identity the race has...meaning you need to give it a new one. If Protoss is just the "boring normal one", while Terran and Zerg get cool stuff...that just sucks. And there is no guarantee that "new Protoss" will in the end be a good fit for the current Protoss-players. Maybe in the process you lose some things that players like herO or MaxPax enjoy and need to play their game...and suddenly, the top-Protosses are forced to either learn an entirely new race or just switch to Terran/Zerg | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 20 2024 08:16 Balnazza wrote: The thing is...you can't just "remove Warpgate". This would need a massive revamp for the Protoss race, including a full year filled with patches to balance it out again. It would be the same like removing creep from the game or medivacs. You also remove a big chunk of the identity the race has...meaning you need to give it a new one. If Protoss is just the "boring normal one", while Terran and Zerg get cool stuff...that just sucks. And there is no guarantee that "new Protoss" will in the end be a good fit for the current Protoss-players. Maybe in the process you lose some things that players like herO or MaxPax enjoy and need to play their game...and suddenly, the top-Protosses are forced to either learn an entirely new race or just switch to Terran/Zerg Does Protoss in Brood War not have a racial identity? This argument has always been irrational and unfounded. The race LOST its racial identity from Brood War when its core units had to be nerfed down to the point where being able to warp them in wasn't totally overpowered. Also keep this in mind. When we talk about removing Warp Gate, we mean removing it from the early game, and changing it into a late game mechanic rather than a core production mechanic that the entire race is balanced around. Late game is when Terran has access to all of their multi pronged drops, Zerg has access to Nydus Worms and has tons of Creep Spread. The mechanics of those races scale UP as the game goes later and later. Warp Gate is the only mobility mechanic that actually scales backwards. It's at its most powerful in the early game when it allows you to reinforce timing attacks without accounting for terrain and distance and gets weaker and weaker as the mobility tools for the other two races come online and the Protoss army gets more and more relegated into being a deathball. It has always worked this way. The race's core units fall off in the late game because they have to be balanced around this early game mechanic. This has always been how the race has worked. You have to rely on immobile support units to support those weaker core units and as the game gets spread out more and more those units become a bigger and bigger liability. If you moved Warp Gate to a late game mechanic, you could rebalance the race's core unit stats and rework their support units so they can serve different uses that are more valuable in the late game the way that Terran and Zerg late game units are. You just need to get it out of the early game. As long as it's there the entire army roster of Protoss has to be built around it. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On August 20 2024 08:14 Vindicare605 wrote: I wanted to remove Warp Gate back in 2013. The community has actively been attempting to fix the problems it causes since at least that long, community balance mods from at least as far back as that have been attempting to fix the core problem. Blizzard themselves have repeatedly in every Protoss rework, nerfed the power of early game Warp Gate tech as a balance for buffing Protoss in other aspects of the game always in an attempt to make Protoss less of a one dimensional "timing attack" or "Warp Gate All in" race. This isn't theoretical. This is literally the history of the race in Starcraft 2. We've had LAUGHABLY bad attempts to fix their core issues like the addition of the Mothership Core that were so hated by everyone in the community that it was eventually removed, and the race hasn't recovered its winrate since. The race has always been a problem, and Warp Gate has always been why. This isn't a new issue, this isn't hypothetical. There is now 14 years and counting of evidence that continues to prove this point. But as long as people want to keep sticking their fingers in their ears about it, the race will never get better. But that has nothing to do with balance, it's game design, or preference in the type of RTS someone wants to play. Has Warp Gate always been easy to balance? Of course not. But you can't say that removing it would make the game easier to balance. In the same way, passing from 6 to 12 workers was neither balanced nor unbalanced, it was just a game design decision about what general kind of RTS Blizzard wanted to develop going forward. You remove some old problems and create new ones, but it's pretty much impossible to say what impact it would have on the win rate of top professionals. Ergo, those kinds of choices should be taken looking at the win rate of pro players. I don't want to see warp gate gone not because of any balance issue, but because it's a fun and specific mechanic. I like playing with it, I like playing against it and every time I go back to BW I feel like protoss are flat and, frankly, a bit dull at times. (Also I actually kind of like the MSC in a twisted way lol) | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 20 2024 08:26 Vindicare605 wrote: Does Protoss in Brood War not have a racial identity? This argument has always been irrational and unfounded. The race LOST its racial identity from Brood War when its core units had to be nerfed down to the point where being able to warp them in wasn't totally overpowered. Also keep this in mind. When we talk about removing Warp Gate, we mean removing it from the early game, and changing it into a late game mechanic rather than a core production mechanic that the entire race is balanced around. Late game is when Terran has access to all of their multi pronged drops, Zerg has access to Nydus Worms and has tons of Creep Spread. The mechanics of those races scale UP as the game goes later and later. Warp Gate is the only mobility mechanic that actually scales backwards. It's at its most powerful in the early game when it allows you to reinforce timing attacks without accounting for terrain and distance and gets weaker and weaker as the mobility tools for the other two races come online and the Protoss army gets more and more relegated into being a deathball. It has always worked this way. The race's core units fall off in the late game because they have to be balanced around this early game mechanic. This has always been how the race has worked. You have to rely on immobile support units to support those weaker core units and as the game gets spread out more and more those units become a bigger and bigger liability. If you moved Warp Gate to a late game mechanic, you could rebalance the race's core unit stats and rework their support units so they can serve different uses that are more valuable in the late game the way that Terran and Zerg late game units do. You just need to get it out of the early game. As long as it's there the entire army roster of Protoss has to be built around it. Okay, putting the Tech into the Lategame is a different story...but still one full of problems. First of all, you remove Protoss Timing Attacks from the board. Or atleast heavily influence them. If you can't warp-in your units at the front, considering how slow they are, you need something else to buff the ability to hit timing-attacks, otherwise Protoss is forced to play a standard game every time, which can't be good. Then you would need to revamp the Warp Prism, because if you can't warp in units with it, for what is it good for? It just becomes the worst Dropship in the game by a landslide. Protoss also can't really harass without it. So you would need to increase its capacity to 6 or even 8. Which then opens the problem...isn't dropping in 8 Zealots with a single dropship dangerously heavy? There is also the question about defense: If Protoss can't just warp-in units to defend their outer bases, do you need to strengthen Shield Batteries? Cannons? Is Protoss forced to always defend all bases with standing army, effectively forcing them to play defensive the entire game? Return of the MSC? Another new ability to protect your bases? Don't get me wrong: It is possible. But it takes time, I'm sure such a major re-design can't be done with one patch. And all the Protoss players need to learn their race kind of "new", since all of their timings and strategies are suddenly off. So while this might lead to better Protoss results in the end, it could also result in a very underpowered race for a few weeks until more patches hit the ground. Or of course they would over-do it and Protoss suddenly becomes extremly OP because of overcorrection. It's an operation on an open heart. If this was to succeed, in my opinion, it would need to come with an entirely new expansion, to really have the time to figure this stuff out. And we all know that won't happen. A small problem, but still an annoying one, would also be the disconnection of the "Multiplayer"-Race from the "Singleplayer"-Race. Protoss suddenly would play very differently compared to its campaign- and CoOp-Counterparts. As I said, a small problem today, but imagine a new player is super-excited about Protoss through the Singleplayer-Content, jumps into multiplayer....aaaand is presented with an entirely different race, build around completly different core-mechanics. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
It’s just a very difficult mechanic to balance around, I think ultimately they’ve done a good job within those constraints. But it is a constraint. Protoss just doesn’t scale all that well the more mechanically skillful you are versus the other two, partly because its core stock units drop off, partly because its macro mechanics don’t comparatively scale up as well either. Somewhat exacerbated by Legacy’s eco changes too. You get into the phases of the game where Zerg and Terran outscale them more frequently. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 20 2024 20:05 Balnazza wrote: Okay, putting the Tech into the Lategame is a different story...but still one full of problems. First of all, you remove Protoss Timing Attacks from the board. Or atleast heavily influence them. If you can't warp-in your units at the front, considering how slow they are, you need something else to buff the ability to hit timing-attacks, otherwise Protoss is forced to play a standard game every time, which can't be good. Then you would need to revamp the Warp Prism, because if you can't warp in units with it, for what is it good for? It just becomes the worst Dropship in the game by a landslide. Protoss also can't really harass without it. So you would need to increase its capacity to 6 or even 8. Which then opens the problem...isn't dropping in 8 Zealots with a single dropship dangerously heavy? There is also the question about defense: If Protoss can't just warp-in units to defend their outer bases, do you need to strengthen Shield Batteries? Cannons? Is Protoss forced to always defend all bases with standing army, effectively forcing them to play defensive the entire game? Return of the MSC? Another new ability to protect your bases? Don't get me wrong: It is possible. But it takes time, I'm sure such a major re-design can't be done with one patch. And all the Protoss players need to learn their race kind of "new", since all of their timings and strategies are suddenly off. So while this might lead to better Protoss results in the end, it could also result in a very underpowered race for a few weeks until more patches hit the ground. Or of course they would over-do it and Protoss suddenly becomes extremly OP because of overcorrection. It's an operation on an open heart. If this was to succeed, in my opinion, it would need to come with an entirely new expansion, to really have the time to figure this stuff out. And we all know that won't happen. A small problem, but still an annoying one, would also be the disconnection of the "Multiplayer"-Race from the "Singleplayer"-Race. Protoss suddenly would play very differently compared to its campaign- and CoOp-Counterparts. As I said, a small problem today, but imagine a new player is super-excited about Protoss through the Singleplayer-Content, jumps into multiplayer....aaaand is presented with an entirely different race, build around completly different core-mechanics. Yea it would be a lot of work. But it's work that Protoss desperately needs and has needed from the start. Blizzard should have been working on this problem fucking 10 years ago but instead we kept getting band aid after band aid because they'd rather go with what's easy than address the core problem in their shitty design. And those same developers haven't learned their lesson because everything that's bad about Protoss design in Starcraft 2 is present again in Stormgate's Celestials and surprise surprise Celestials are a balance headache in that game too. It's an ego thing for them, they think the mechanic is cool and want desperately to make it work even though it's just a bad mechanic to have in an RTS game. So we have a choice in Starcraft 2. We can keep doing this same tired dance over and over again, trying to dance around these core problems that Protoss has, that were never good ideas to begin with like Warp Gate and to a lesser extent like the Mothership, because they're "cool." Or we could do what should have been done a long time ago. Like I said. I don't have any hope that we will since it's clear by now that there's an irrational attachment towards the mechanic that is just ingrained deeper now that it's been a part of the game for so long. But if that's the way the community wants to play it, then I just don't see a need to take Protoss performance concerns in tournaments seriously. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 21 2024 00:09 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea it would be a lot of work. But it's work that Protoss desperately needs and has needed from the start. Blizzard should have been working on this problem fucking 10 years ago but instead we kept getting band aid after band aid because they'd rather go with what's easy than address the core problem in their shitty design. And those same developers haven't learned their lesson because everything that's bad about Protoss design in Starcraft 2 is present again in Stormgate's Celestials. It's an ego thing for them, they think the mechanic is cool and want desperately to make it work even though it's just a bad mechanic to have in an RTS game. So we have a choice in Starcraft 2. We can keep doing this same tired dance over and over again, trying to dance around these core problems that Protoss has, that were never good ideas to begin with like Warp Gate and to a lesser extent like the Mothership, because they're "cool." Or we could do what should have been done a long time ago. Like I said. I don't have any hope that we will since it's clear by now that there's an irrational attachment towards the mechanic that is just ingrained deeper now that it's been a part of the game for so long. But if that's the way the community wants to play it, then I just don't see a need to take Protoss performance concerns in tournaments seriously. You do see the irony in attesting the devs an ego problem, while simultanousely being 100% convinced that Warpgate is a core-issue and you've always known it, right? I mean, you say it is a problem since ten years ago...a year in which Protoss dominated GSL. So if I look back now into news about the GSLs in 2014, I will find comments there from you saying "yes, it's cool that Zest won, but Warpgate is broken and needs to be removed asap"? Also...sorry, but the fact that we don't get Warpgate removed now has nothing to do with ego or the community not wanting it, the task is simply too big to do it for the devs we have. That topic is done. Otherwise, if we had a realistic chance to revamp things, I would already partition to revamp the entire terran race, so that they finally get something to do that is not completly rage-inducing to me... | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 21 2024 00:25 Balnazza wrote: You do see the irony in attesting the devs an ego problem, while simultanousely being 100% convinced that Warpgate is a core-issue and you've always known it, right? I mean, you say it is a problem since ten years ago...a year in which Protoss dominated GSL. So if I look back now into news about the GSLs in 2014, I will find comments there from you saying "yes, it's cool that Zest won, but Warpgate is broken and needs to be removed asap"? Also...sorry, but the fact that we don't get Warpgate removed now has nothing to do with ego or the community not wanting it, the task is simply too big to do it for the devs we have. That topic is done. Otherwise, if we had a realistic chance to revamp things, I would already partition to revamp the entire terran race, so that they finally get something to do that is not completly rage-inducing to me... If you go back to 2014, there were conversations about Warp Gate because 2014 was the height of the Blink All In Meta. There were also lots of conversations happening about the maps, and especially about the Mothership Core, but the core problem with Warp Gate was also front and center, it was just at that time Protoss was winning and not losing. But that right there is exactly my point. You can't balance the mechanic, the race is either the overpowered timing attack race that no one likes to play against, or watch, or its in the state it's in now. It's impossible to get it exactly right. Just hilarious you chose that specific example of that specific year when it fits into my argument perfectly. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 21 2024 00:29 Vindicare605 wrote: If you go back to 2014, there were conversations about Warp Gate because 2014 was the height of the Blink All In Meta. There were also lots of conversations happening about the maps, and especially about the Mothership Core, but the core problem with Warp Gate was also front and center, it was just at that time Protoss was winning and not losing. But that right there is exactly my point. You can't balance the mechanic, the race is either the overpowered timing attack race that no one likes to play against, or watch, or its in the state it's in now. It's impossible to get it exactly right. Just hilarious you chose that specific example of that specific year when it fits into my argument perfectly. Actually you did chose it when you said "since ten years ago" | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 21 2024 00:25 Balnazza wrote: You do see the irony in attesting the devs an ego problem, while simultanousely being 100% convinced that Warpgate is a core-issue and you've always known it, right? I mean, you say it is a problem since ten years ago...a year in which Protoss dominated GSL. So if I look back now into news about the GSLs in 2014, I will find comments there from you saying "yes, it's cool that Zest won, but Warpgate is broken and needs to be removed asap"? Also...sorry, but the fact that we don't get Warpgate removed now has nothing to do with ego or the community not wanting it, the task is simply too big to do it for the devs we have. That topic is done. Otherwise, if we had a realistic chance to revamp things, I would already partition to revamp the entire terran race, so that they finally get something to do that is not completly rage-inducing to me... When HoTS or Legacy came out there was the budget to remove and rework it, they chose not to. Protoss’ early Legacy success were very dependent on a broken adept, since that got (rightly) tooled back they’ve never been close to where they were. If you’re hell bent on keeping warpgate in the game, you make it a tradeoff, or make it a late game tech. Warpgate gives you mobility and reinforcement, gateway pumps out units faster, that kinda thing. Then you can experiment with giving Protoss better stock units. Do I want more stuff, that has to travel and rally, or less stuff, but can warp right in my opponent’s face? It could have been an interesting trade off, look myself and a thousand other people have suggested things over a decade+ Warpgate is just the default, it’s just better than gateways. The fact it even needs upgraded feels a bit silly because it’s never not upgraded. There’s literally no reason not to outside of hyper-optimised builds. If we’re even talking identity, well Protoss’ BW identity was beefy, scary basic units and tech units augmented it. In SC2 their base units aren’t nearly as scary. They don’t really fit the niche they did in that game at all, Ok Warpgate is at this stage enshrined, but you’re lost a lot of identity in the process. In BW the high technology, advanced race was beefy. Better comparatively in lower numbers than its equivalents. That absolutely thematically fits. If we were to design an RTS from complete scratch, and consider which faction should be expensive but supply efficient, the faction that should be that is the hyper advanced one But in SC2 you can’t do that with Toss because gateway units have to relatively suck and scale badly to accommodate warpgate | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 21 2024 00:09 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea it would be a lot of work. But it's work that Protoss desperately needs and has needed from the start. Blizzard should have been working on this problem fucking 10 years ago but instead we kept getting band aid after band aid because they'd rather go with what's easy than address the core problem in their shitty design. And those same developers haven't learned their lesson because everything that's bad about Protoss design in Starcraft 2 is present again in Stormgate's Celestials and surprise surprise Celestials are a balance headache in that game too. It's an ego thing for them, they think the mechanic is cool and want desperately to make it work even though it's just a bad mechanic to have in an RTS game. So we have a choice in Starcraft 2. We can keep doing this same tired dance over and over again, trying to dance around these core problems that Protoss has, that were never good ideas to begin with like Warp Gate and to a lesser extent like the Mothership, because they're "cool." Or we could do what should have been done a long time ago. Like I said. I don't have any hope that we will since it's clear by now that there's an irrational attachment towards the mechanic that is just ingrained deeper now that it's been a part of the game for so long. But if that's the way the community wants to play it, then I just don't see a need to take Protoss performance concerns in tournaments seriously. It’s just a bad mechanic, we’ve seen enough years of evidence. Or at least it’s a bad CORE mechanic, it being gated up the tech tree is another thing They decided to implement something similar with Celestials and quel surprise people are finding it really frustrating to play against at times. As you say. I’m not some arch-traditionalist, experiment by all means. But warpgate or similar teleporting mechanics has been shown to create a fuckload of wider problems. And tbh isn’t ‘cool’ enough to merit that trade off | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
Its a one hour long video i have only found in recent weeks. It is very very interesting. He talks about warpgate on multiple occasions. But if any of you only want to listen to about what he says about warpgate and don't care about the rest, go to 23:27 and 51:35. But still, the whole video is very interesting and i really enjoyed it. Even though he played only in the WoL and HotS era,still quite a lots of things are absolutely viable nowadays. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 21 2024 04:25 kajtarp wrote: Seems like Grubby tends to agree about Warpgate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYsCD0D9788 Its a one hour long video i have only found in recent weeks. It is very very interesting. He talks about warpgate on multiple occasions. But if any of you only want to listen to about what he says about warpgate and don't care about the rest, go to 23:27 and 51:35. But still, the whole video is very interesting and i really enjoyed it. Even though he played only in the WoL and HotS era,still quite a lots of things are absolutely viable nowadays. If this is the video that I remember watching, he brings up very good points about the Sentry also. Which is a related issue, since the Sentry is a unit that requires all of the Protoss units to stay grouped together in tight balls in order to be effective. The Sentry doesn't get talked about much anymore since the Ravager all but made it irrelevant in LOTV, but for a long time, the Sentry was basically THE unit that made the Protoss deathball possible. When we look around at all the problems that Protoss has in LOTV especially in the late game, the same issues come up. Protoss units are terrible in small groups, Protoss armies are immobile, and if caught out of position even slightly, Protoss armies get punished much worse than Zerg or Terran armies do. The Sentry checks all of those same boxes. It was just that before the introduction of the Ravager, it was so effective at what it did, that it allowed the Protoss deathball to win in the early game in ways that it really can't anymore. | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
On August 21 2024 05:14 Vindicare605 wrote: If this is the video that I remember watching, he brings up very good points about the Sentry also. ... Possibly, he talks about the sentry aswell. But in a bad way (like how op blocking ramps in enemy bases was before Ravagers were introduced) | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 21 2024 05:20 kajtarp wrote: Possibly, he talks about the sentry aswell. But in a bad way (like how op blocking ramps in enemy bases was before Ravagers were introduced) Yea the Sentry is a mess of a unit I'm not defending it in any way. I'm merely pointing out how the Sentry is another unit that clearly identifies the problems in Protoss design, and it's also objectively true that ever since the Ravager made the Sentry all but irrelevant that Protoss has had a much harder time winning than it used to. Which goes back to the bigger overall issue. Even when Protoss was winning, it was winning in a way that hardly anyone liked, which is why they ended up getting nerfed in the first place. It's a design problem first and a balance problem second. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
-Protoss was hit very hard by retirements. There is a limited pool of top players now, and SoS, Rain, Zest and others leaving hurts. -Protoss does have tools with a very high skill cap, most notably blink and warp prisms. -The race has great opportunities for strategic trickery, and attacking in unusual ways. -In SC2, Protoss lost some identity as the beefy race, but gained one as time/space manipulators. This was a very conscious choice from the game designers. That no-warpgate mods like Starbow never took off tells me they were not completely wrong. -Clem's TvP is not representative for the MU as a whole. His TvP is simply amazing, and can't be copied. UThermal breaks some of it down here, and praised herO's PvT as well | ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
On August 21 2024 05:30 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea the Sentry is a mess of a unit I'm not defending it in any way. I'm merely pointing out how the Sentry is another unit that clearly identifies the problems in Protoss design, and it's also objectively true that ever since the Ravager made the Sentry all but irrelevant that Protoss has had a much harder time winning than it used to. Which goes back to the bigger overall issue. Even when Protoss was winning, it was winning in a way that hardly anyone liked, which is why they ended up getting nerfed in the first place. It's a design problem first and a balance problem second. Design or balance goes hand by hand. Protoss gateway units have to be weak by default because imagine if they could warp in strong units anywhere on the map especially early game. Hence it makes a lot of sense to me to at least test out how Toss would work with Gateway only at the start, and only have warp in as a late game option when it won't be as game breaking. And the compensate lack of gateway in other ways. Production time, hp, damage whatever. The game has a balance test mod after all. But as i said earlier, i doubt this game will receive any meaningful patches or even a small one. | ||
|
Agh
United States898 Posts
With how Stormgate is floundering around in a similar manner you might as well use the opportunity to breathe some new life into the game. You could still milk Starcraft II even to this day in a multitude of ways. Hell, Battle Aces is just a glorified sc2 custom map. You could slap matchmaking for something that and other customs and people would eat it up. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
I find it stupid to blame it all on warp gate, you can say the same about any mechanic. In rts you're supposed to be supply blocked, remove supply calldown. You're not supposed to have vision anywhere on the map, or to get instant detection, remove SCAN. You're supposed to get your inc through building workers, remove MULE. MULEs have received as many complaints as the WG, btw. The races get their identity through breaking RTS norms, just see larvae and creep. If it's just the warp prism you're against, i'm with you, but the wg is cool, feels protoss and allow awesome plays to happen. Stalker blink probably is a bigger reason for its weakness, than because of warp gate. But it's no different than roaches, lings need to be weak because of inject. Or any zerg unit needs to be slightly weaker because of creep movespeed bonus. We cannot balance the game because of creep, and WG, that's why conveniently z needs to be OP and p needs to lose, give me a break. | ||
|
tigera6
3217 Posts
On August 21 2024 20:48 Vision_ wrote: We could add an upgrade which give to stalkers +2 range bonus.and +20 shield bonus, but these bonus upgrade are temporaly lost during 15 seconds (let s say) after a blink. Good luck holding 3/4-gate blink opening against that. The only way it could work is to put this as a "lategame" upgrade where you need +3 ground weapon before researching it or something. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 22 2024 15:02 tigera6 wrote: Good luck holding 3/4-gate blink opening against that. The only way it could work is to put this as a "lategame" upgrade where you need +3 ground weapon before researching it or something. Yes it can be unlocked after blink research, no problem but as ejzol said, the problem comes mainly from stalkers than warpgate, even if blink ability is fun Reading diagonally what you are saying about Warpgate make me think to question you if it s the problem is to completely remove warpgate or tweak ??? Because, with a compensation for base units (which i support), the warpgate could work with a cooldown, which means that Protoss won t be able to warp gate units during a longer period after use. With this tweak, people against warpgate are satisfy and people defending warpgate keep their favorite spell. Then you can merge +2 range (with desactivation after blink) and blink ability in order to not "add another step in the meta". Warprism will now be a little bit less interessant, so the arbiter ability "could be added". Then in the hub (shortcuts), warpgate units will be built like "advanced structure", the only thing protoss player will have to do is to bind a new key in gateway to access in the sub panel with warpgat-able units It makes sense, because historically, warpgate units allow shorter building time compared to units built inside gateway while it s an advantage to create units far from their base. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 22 2024 14:38 ejozl wrote: Protoss defend their many bases through shield battery, warp gate and recall. If you remove warp gate, their needs compensation, as protoss is alrdy quite weak on defence. I find it stupid to blame it all on warp gate, you can say the same about any mechanic. In rts you're supposed to be supply blocked, remove supply calldown. You're not supposed to have vision anywhere on the map, or to get instant detection, remove SCAN. You're supposed to get your inc through building workers, remove MULE. MULEs have received as many complaints as the WG, btw. The races get their identity through breaking RTS norms, just see larvae and creep. If it's just the warp prism you're against, i'm with you, but the wg is cool, feels protoss and allow awesome plays to happen. Stalker blink probably is a bigger reason for its weakness, than because of warp gate. But it's no different than roaches, lings need to be weak because of inject. Or any zerg unit needs to be slightly weaker because of creep movespeed bonus. We cannot balance the game because of creep, and WG, that's why conveniently z needs to be OP and p needs to lose, give me a break. WG is just fundamentally a bad mechanic as a main production method. I think many are OK keeping it in some way, be it a late game upgrade or requiring prisms etc. It’s cool-looking and fits the race thematically extremely well, but it’s really difficult to balance, and causes most of Toss’ issues. I mean they are weak in defence and need things like battery and recall, but this is largely because of Warpgate. You can’t have gateway units as potent as their equivalents because they can show up outside the enemy’s base. As they’re weaker and scale worse, splitting armies becomes harder to do and leaves gaps defensively. Also makes it harder to roam the map and do things like clearing creep. Hence Protoss tends to bounce between periods of being overpowered or frustrating to play against, or undertuned at the top levels. Legacy also doesn’t exactly suit the race either, the other two’s macro mechanics scale much better the more bases and spread-out things are, and Legacy sees more bases obtained, faster. Also the risk/reward of those mechanics also starts skewing towards mostly reward due to the faster eco. Muling hard versus saving some energy for scans, there’s a trade-off that’s quite meaningful when you have 1/2 OCs, but you can just do both when you’re at 7/8+. To take one example. It’s not just SC2 either, we’ve seen already in Stormgate with the Celestials having a version of it that it causes a whole bunch of problems. Other races have mechanics that may or may not be too powerful at times, but I don’t think they’re fundamentally flawed in the same way Warpgate is. There needs to be a trade-off, if you make it the default mode of production for basic units, you have to weaken those units. You could, for example strengthen gateway units, make gateways the default and say, make warping in a Nexus ability, that enables a warp-in but makes your next round of production slower. You can create some risk/reward between say chronoing your gates hardcore and pumping out lots of units, or reinforcing an attack or defence at the expense of slower production cycles. Just one example, but as it is now there is no trade-off, you get Warpgate because it is better. Well, there is a trade-off, it’s weaker gateway units. If Protoss had stronger, more robust gateway units, as well as having their macro mechanics scale better, they’d be more competitive at the top level. If gateways+chrono was a potent option to pump out extra units, top Protoss pros would have that APM sink to bludgeon opppnents with sheer macro in the late game. It’s all academic now given WG is exceptionally unlikely to change, many of us advocating for a rethink have always done so under the rationale it’s extremely difficult to balance around, and if you retooled it you can make Protoss more potent in the hands of skilled players. Many of us have certain biases clearly shown by our TL icons :p Way I see it you can have one or the other. A ‘cool’ mechanic that’s incredibly hard to balance around, and if push comes to shove often goes the side of Protoss being underpowered rather than overpowered, as when it’s OP it’s often due to very frustrating strats. Or rework that mechanic and make it easier to bring the faction into line with the other two. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
you re right this ability must be inside nexus. Even if Zerg has always been rewarded first in tourney, Protoss looks now dominated by Terrans | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
It's all of the factors together and WG is only one side of the story. We don't complain about how weak the roach needs to be and cannot be balanced, due to creep, inject, ravager morph, its synergy with hydras and ofc the zerg WG, the nydus worm. And then excusing that z can only be too powerful or too weak, and therefore it's better that zerg remain too weak, because it's frustrating the way you lose to it. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
Mutaller
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary462 Posts
On August 23 2024 00:11 Mutaller wrote: Maybe a range upgrade for stalkers? +.5 for a total of 6.5? That's what made dragoons so good, the role of dragoon is lost to the stalker, why not give it the same advantage the dragoon had. Comparing dragoon with range to hydra with range, the dragoon would have 1 more range than the hydra. Stalkers and Hydras in sc2 have the same range I could imagine a transform to dragoon command, similar how ravagers are morphed from roaches. We'd have a dragoon with bigger range/damage whatever compared to stalkers, but without blink. Increasing range for blink stalkers signals trouble for me. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 23 2024 00:36 kajtarp wrote: I could imagine a transform to dragoon command, similar how ravagers are morphed from roaches. We'd have a dragoon with bigger range/damage whatever compared to stalkers, but without blink. Increasing range for blink stalkers signals trouble for me. The only thing which can be figured is to cancel for a short period (~12 sec) this +2 range bonus after a blink.... Then as i tested marauders/medivacs against stalkers in balance mod, and because stalkers are beefy while marauders lose a bit health on stimpack, i can clearly attest that stalkers with a proper micro blink are balanced (but time consuming in term of apm). So it s not possible to buff them without a counterpart (negative for protoss or positive for opponent idk) The +2 bonus idea comes from SC:evo complete show matchs as many people know... | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
On August 23 2024 00:11 Mutaller wrote: Maybe a range upgrade for stalkers? +.5 for a total of 6.5? That's what made dragoons so good, the role of dragoon is lost to the stalker, why not give it the same advantage the dragoon had. Comparing dragoon with range to hydra with range, the dragoon would have 1 more range than the hydra. Stalkers and Hydras in sc2 have the same range A nerf on hydra range would be better, can change roach and marine range, while we're at it, units have too long range in general in sc2. That's one of the reasons that blob fighting is so strong. Imagine if more units behaved the way that roaches do, the game would be way more strategic, the use of concaves vs. funneling in units. It would also make holding a ramp, or other defensive point more powerful. The longer the attack ranges, the less units need to travel during battles, making them less interesting. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 23 2024 15:17 ejozl wrote: ??? No. It s really important to keep at least these range because of the cooldown attack. It allows long cooldown for tanks for example while zergling have short cooldown and are close combat units (scale proportionnally with visible differences) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 24 2024 02:44 ejozl wrote: So should roaches attack quicker because they have short range? (...) All Rules have exception (if not the rule won t be) I don t understand why it would be more interesting, the actual size of concaves looks ok to me | ||
|
CaRn1FeX
Germany203 Posts
 | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On August 24 2024 07:33 CaRn1FeX wrote: Protoss is fine, just nerf stim (+30% health lost, -20% of attack speed gained) and lurkers (attack range 6, +30% cost, -10% atack speed) and Sc2 is gonna be balanced Nerf Stim and Terran will never win another pro match against Zerg again. I love these kinds of posts because it just shows how little people understand how Starcraft balance works. Any change you make needs to take all 3 match ups into account, not just 1 match up. That's not a fix, that's just an exchange for which race is at the top of the totem pole and which one is at the bottom. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On August 24 2024 07:33 CaRn1FeX wrote: Protoss is fine, just nerf stim (+30% health lost, -20% of attack speed gained) and lurkers (attack range 6, +30% cost, -10% atack speed) and Sc2 is gonna be balanced Yeah, I hope this is a troll post. Stim is really important vs Protoss as well, both for dps and mobility. Remember that Protoss is allowed to have not Colosseus, Storm and Disruptors to melt bio because of stim. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 24 2024 02:44 ejozl wrote: So should roaches attack quicker because they have short range? But you are right to talk about roach against a tweaked stalkers ( with longer range) it could be awfull. In "my game mod" I definetly think that stalkers should be the speedy unit, the counterpart of vultures (which are better than hellions because of their awesome micro at the start of the game) and the counterpart of zergling. (more does it dragoons replace adepts) Ofc it s speculation, but actually i have all changes in mind and these changes are ordered by step. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
On August 24 2024 07:33 CaRn1FeX wrote: Protoss is fine, just nerf stim (+30% health lost, -20% of attack speed gained) and lurkers (attack range 6, +30% cost, -10% atack speed) and Sc2 is gonna be balanced I get it, because Marines have 10 more hp in sc2. This would actually be an interesting nerf, Stim is alrdy OP. It's stronger than Blink, Charge, or the Adept upgrades, because it affects both the Marine and the Marauder. It's probably one of the only small changes you can do to the Marine without nerfing it to the ground. Though just putting 1 more armour on many of the bigger units could have the same effect. Already Ts don't need to think about their medivac energy at all, though here you could also nerf the boost so it costs energy. The lurker change would gimp the unit, but at range 9 vs. range 6 in bw we see that the lurker has a completely different role. It goes from a sneaky ambushing unit to a sneaky siege unit that is also quick, it's a few too many roles, making the unit broke as hell. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 24 2024 08:51 Vindicare605 wrote: Nerf Stim and Terran will never win another pro match against Zerg again. I love these kinds of posts because it just shows how little people understand how Starcraft balance works. Any change you make needs to take all 3 match ups into account, not just 1 match up. That's not a fix, that's just an exchange for which race is at the top of the totem pole and which one is at the bottom. I’d hate to be the pro player trying to undo a whole career’s worth of stutter step muscle memory. I can’t really complain about folks proposing radical changes considering I advocate for removing/changing warp gate I suppose haha. But that aside I mean unless someone’s testing their proposals they’re just arbitrary number changes that we have no idea the impact of. It’s a gigantic change in a game where engagements are really front-loaded in which way they sway in terms of damage taken/received. To take just one interaction, and I couldn’t be arsed actually checking but if say, stimmed marines get one-shot by 0-0 tanks that hugely alters That. And I think quite a lot of people dig the simple joys of marine tank mirror | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 29 2024 15:44 WombaT wrote: I’d hate to be the pro player trying to undo a whole career’s worth of stutter step muscle memory. I can’t really complain about folks proposing radical changes considering I advocate for removing/changing warp gate I suppose haha. But that aside I mean unless someone’s testing their proposals they’re just arbitrary number changes that we have no idea the impact of. It’s a gigantic change in a game where engagements are really front-loaded in which way they sway in terms of damage taken/received. To take just one interaction, and I couldn’t be arsed actually checking but if say, stimmed marines get one-shot by 0-0 tanks that hugely alters That. And I think quite a lot of people dig the simple joys of marine tank mirror To resume, if you tweak by slowing down the frequency of warping gate units (inside nexus), then i would suggest two changes : - add arbiter teleportation spell into mothership core (photon overcharge ability will be activated differently); mass recall mana cost now = 100, arbiter teleport = 150, Khaydarin amulet max mana = 250 - add dragoons with 8 range Personnal toughts : stalkers become an harassement and light unit. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On August 29 2024 14:38 ejozl wrote: I get it, because Marines have 10 more hp in sc2. This would actually be an interesting nerf, Stim is alrdy OP. It's stronger than Blink, Charge, or the Adept upgrades, because it affects both the Marine and the Marauder. It's probably one of the only small changes you can do to the Marine without nerfing it to the ground. Though just putting 1 more armour on many of the bigger units could have the same effect. Already Ts don't need to think about their medivac energy at all, though here you could also nerf the boost so it costs energy. Stimmed bio is probably the one core mechanic the whole game mechanic is based around, and it is a great one! You trade health for DPS and mobility. It allows Z and P to have great bio counters, and different lots of different timing windows open for both sides. If you change it even the slightest, it causes a whole bunch of problems in every matchup. Remember that stimmed bio has been largely unchanged throughout the history of SC2, and Terran has still has terrible records in long stretches with only a few players holding the fort. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
On August 30 2024 02:03 Slydie wrote: Stimmed bio is probably the one core mechanic the whole game mechanic is based around, and it is a great one! You trade health for DPS and mobility. It allows Z and P to have great bio counters, and different lots of different timing windows open for both sides. If you change it even the slightest, it causes a whole bunch of problems in every matchup. Remember that stimmed bio has been largely unchanged throughout the history of SC2, and Terran has still has terrible records in long stretches with only a few players holding the fort. I mean yes, but dkim decided to make it broken with medivac boost, which resulted in stronger muta, photon overcharge, which became the standard. T have gone from having weak ghosts, meaning protoss wins in the ; late mid game to strong ghosts, which goes the other way. There have been plenty of pretty big fundamental changes to economy, defense and mobility creep. For instance, in WoL/hots it was common for T to be up one base on the protoss, whereas now this has completely flipped. It's still the same marauder, so we're going from bio trouncing on gateway units, because of sheer numbers to gateway units outnumbering the terran. So before without colossus and storm there'd be no chance against the terran army, whereas now we often see terran sit back in fear of unit surrounds. Stim went from 170 seconds to 110, I think, a huge change and a big culprit for P sorrow in that matchup in newer times. And let's also remember that bio units are accompanied by units that have received big changes as well. Let's take the previous example, vikings now beat stalkers, have more hp and maneuverability so much so that they beat carriers now which was previously not the case. Colossus are a shadow of its former self, still strong vs. light units, but now they would even lose to landed vikings, which would've been a laughable suggestion in WoL. This new interaction with a more powerful viking vs. a weaker colossus only works because of the economy changes. All this to say that it's really not the same game anymore, so it's not like there is some sacred interaction that needs to be upheld. Still I don't favour changes which go against what sc2 has always been like. The Stalker change was good and needed every P to relearn the game, it was worth it imo, but let's not do too many of these changes without a very good reason for it. The 13 hp stim would make it so +1 tanks kill +2 marines, btw, I don't know if that is a good change, but maybe. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored Consequences : 1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings). 2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase) 3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward). 4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 30 2024 20:29 Vision_ wrote: My idea concerning marines change : damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored Consequences : 1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings). 2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase) 3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward). 4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not. Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm... | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
I would be pretty happy if some units can be improved in their use, without making the protoss race completely broken between pros and casual players. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On August 30 2024 21:50 Balnazza wrote: So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not. Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm... Isn’t that just called Stormgate? I’ve long suspected that one part of it was it being a new game, and wanting to make new units, really mark out the sequel as new. The other part is that some BW units just didn’t work in the new setting with the new engine so got dropped. Or they didn’t really work when they factored in the new units they added. I mean most of them are there in the campaigns, they did port them over and likely tested their viability for multiplayer | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
On August 30 2024 21:50 Balnazza wrote: So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not. Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm... I'm just saying, if protoss had destroyers, infested terrans never would've been a problem because of devour magix, killing summons. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On August 30 2024 23:20 ejozl wrote: I'm just saying, if protoss had destroyers, infested terrans never would've been a problem because of devour magix, killing summons. HTs would also become quite interesting with Obsidian Statues, having a unit to create Energy on the field. Swarm Hosts would be nerfed if you can just detonate your workers into the Locust...my nemesis, the Medievac, could be ensnared by Raiders. Ofc widow mines are removed btw....So technically no new units are added. ...so basically you want to revert Terran back to SC1? Taking Hellions and Widow Mines out, Vultures and Firebats in? I know you are one of the three people that take SC: Evo serious, but maybe lets just enjoy the fact that SC1 and SC2 are two different games with two different gameplay mechanics? | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 31 2024 00:03 Balnazza wrote: HTs would also become quite interesting with Obsidian Statues, having a unit to create Energy on the field. Swarm Hosts would be nerfed if you can just detonate your workers into the Locust...my nemesis, the Medievac, could be ensnared by Raiders. ...so basically you want to revert Terran back to SC1? Taking Hellions and Widow Mines out, Vultures and Firebats in? I know you are one of the three people that take SC: Evo serious, but maybe lets just enjoy the fact that SC1 and SC2 are two different games with two different gameplay mechanics? Not really, it s only a third percent of changes (gameplay mecanics - PART 3) plus one third because of bases pattern (i.e minerals fields), they are always drawing the same shape on the map, so strategy is redundant even if we saw some fresh map with innovation recently. Here the idea is inspired by harvesting spices like Dune RTS (i.e harvest minerals far from base, workers can cross cliffs to harvest violet mineral inside a neutral building in order to be protected of harrassement when harvesting PART-2). Three units with a rock paper scissor model : zerglings, vultures and stalkers are used as harassement units against workers harvesting violet minerals in the start of the game. plus one last third for slowing firerate units (PART-1) PS : devour magic is a smart idea | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field. Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On September 02 2024 03:05 Vision_ wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=971sSlRxuNA The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field. Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...) Haha, that was hilarious! The SCVs would need to bring in a few 100 minerals per trip for that to be worth it. Babysitting workers while they harvest resources is NOT my idea of fun for RTS games. Look at how Battle Aces took it in the complete opposite direction: expansions are built by a single click, and the static "workers" are built automatically. This frees up time to think about micro, attack angles and unit compositions. Expanding/not expanding is already a risk/reward consideration in any RTS game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 02 2024 18:12 Slydie wrote: Haha, that was hilarious! The SCVs would need to bring in a few 100 minerals per trip for that to be worth it. Babysitting workers while they harvest resources is NOT my idea of fun for RTS games. Look at how Battle Aces took it in the complete opposite direction: expansions are built by a single click, and the static "workers" are built automatically. This frees up time to think about micro, attack angles and unit compositions. Expanding/not expanding is already a risk/reward consideration in any RTS game. I don’t think it’s many people’s idea of fun. I can totally get the appeal in a city builder/4X kinda game where you’re securing your supply lines and whatnot for sure In a more classic style RTS I can’t see it being anything other than incredibly frustrating. SC2 IMO is already a bit too heavy on the harass workers side of the ledger, this would be like that but on crack. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On September 02 2024 20:44 Balnazza wrote: How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"? Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems. So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 02 2024 22:48 Vindicare605 wrote: Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems. So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas. You are correct and if that is what is happening, I'm not minding it. But the jumps are so crazy to me. It starts with "Should we enter Dragoons?" to which the answer is a clear "no", then suddenly there is the input of Ultralisks needing changes, before we kind of return to Dragoons and start talking about Stalker-Changes. in between there was also a bit of time for some good ol' "lets reverse Terran back to SC1 and kick out most of the SC2 units". And now we have come to mapchanges and fundamental dynamic changes of how the economy works, together with the idea of "more units should walk over cliffs". And all of that would be fine if it was a natural discussion, if one thing would lead to another. But all of the ideas I mentioned above are introduced by the OP himself. They are not connected in any way. Workers being able to walk over cliffs has nothing to do with "Does Protoss need Dragoons?". The only connection is 'It would be cool, if...". I know I'm probably overpedantic here, I really get that. But at this point, maybe these and other threads should just firm under the name "Visioncraft" because he clearly does not want to talk about SC2. Or, y'know, he should get a Twitter or something... | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying On September 02 2024 18:24 WombaT wrote: I don’t think it’s many people’s idea of fun. I can totally get the appeal in a city builder/4X kinda game where you’re securing your supply lines and whatnot for sure In a more classic style RTS I can’t see it being anything other than incredibly frustrating. SC2 IMO is already a bit too heavy on the harass workers side of the ledger, this would be like that but on crack. Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe I also miss to say that there will be a neutral structure to protect workers from harassement | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote: meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again, so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying 1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180° ...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death. Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On September 03 2024 03:35 Balnazza wrote: 1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180° ...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death. enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers. It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000 | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 03 2024 03:43 Vision_ wrote: It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000 SK Gaming has been founded in 1997, so Esports was a thing pre-2000. Ever heard of Quake? And it literally has nothing to do with Network Capacity. The RA-Games are fun, they have a diehard community, but there is a reason why "no economy"-basebuild RTS never took off. Never. Not C&C. Not RA. Not Dawn of War in any iteration really. Not Company of Heroes or Iron Harvest. Minimal basebuild and economy is helpful for quick and easy starts, but it removes the depth from the game which is needed to get traction. Not saying SC2, AoE 2 or WC3 do it "perfect", but they certainly do it great and in a unique way to each other. And it is part of the core of the game. If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game. And if your only argument for change is "I want something new" then you would have to change it constantly...so what, every new year we design a new SC2? | ||
|
zelevin
United States243 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On August 31 2024 19:19 ejozl wrote: 8 range stalker would be broken as all hell, even if was a late game upg that got disabled upon blinking. 8 range is neural, lurker un-upgraded range, so we're outranging cannons, spines and planetaries. Pvp would become even more stalker obsessed, and in the other matchups stalkers would become late game units as well. Ff is extremely powerful with long range units, storm becomes better at zoning, because there's now a smaller range of optimal position for the other player to position his units. Vinkings and corruptors would be less likely to get shots off on carriers. Liberator vs. stalker would be a fair fight. Medivacs, and any unit would be easier to snipe off. Yes range for dragoons or stalkes can t be 8, it s better to consider 5+2 and create an unit which is slightly better than marauders or hydralisks(supply cost=1, no tag armor) | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 02 2024 23:25 Balnazza wrote: You are correct and if that is what is happening, I'm not minding it. But the jumps are so crazy to me. It starts with "Should we enter Dragoons?" to which the answer is a clear "no", then suddenly there is the input of Ultralisks needing changes, before we kind of return to Dragoons and start talking about Stalker-Changes. in between there was also a bit of time for some good ol' "lets reverse Terran back to SC1 and kick out most of the SC2 units". And now we have come to mapchanges and fundamental dynamic changes of how the economy works, together with the idea of "more units should walk over cliffs". And all of that would be fine if it was a natural discussion, if one thing would lead to another. But all of the ideas I mentioned above are introduced by the OP himself. They are not connected in any way. Workers being able to walk over cliffs has nothing to do with "Does Protoss need Dragoons?". The only connection is 'It would be cool, if...". I know I'm probably overpedantic here, I really get that. But at this point, maybe these and other threads should just firm under the name "Visioncraft" because he clearly does not want to talk about SC2. Or, y'know, he should get a Twitter or something... I’m down with a bit of theory crafting, hell I’m a proud member of the anti-warpgate crowd for over a decade. But I think Vision has said he doesn’t really watch, or actively play SC2, least the competitive side. I just don’t see the point when, at present there are multiple threads here for in-development RTS games where a lot of discourse is people discussing what they’d like to see, ideas from the iterative to the radical. It seems a much better outlet for their vision, pun intended Pick basically any ABBA album and it’s fantastic, hook-laden mainstream pop music. But I also love me some Miles Davis, especially Kind of Blue which is something of a high water mark for that form of jazz. It would be kinda rightly seen as bizarre if I was on Reddit pages for either artist going why don’t they do more of what the other artist does? | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 03 2024 16:32 WombaT wrote: I’m down with a bit of theory crafting, hell I’m a proud member of the anti-warpgate crowd for over a decade. But I think Vision has said he doesn’t really watch, or actively play SC2, least the competitive side. I just don’t see the point when, at present there are multiple threads here for in-development RTS games where a lot of discourse is people discussing what they’d like to see, ideas from the iterative to the radical. It seems a much better outlet for their vision, pun intended Pick basically any ABBA album and it’s fantastic, hook-laden mainstream pop music. But I also love me some Miles Davis, especially Kind of Blue which is something of a high water mark for that form of jazz. It would be kinda rightly seen as bizarre if I was on Reddit pages for either artist going why don’t they do more of what the other artist does? I think you might have pinpointed why it annoys me so much. It really is a pet-peeve of mine when people have a fundamental dislike of something, but instead of just accepting that it isn't for them, they have the impulse to change it so it fits their taste better - even if the core-community of the game hates it. As you said yourself: If you like Hiphop, look for a Hiphop-singer. Don't go to a rock band say "sing HipHop or you are boring" It's like...I like SC2. Really, really like it, one of my favorite games of all time. But I love Warcraft 3. Still the best game I have ever played. And yet, at no point in time, did I seriously think "you know what SC2 needs? Heroes! And creeps around the map. That would be so awesome!" ...hey, it might be awesome - for me. But I'm sure the majority of the Starcraft-Community would hate the thought of their beloved game moving away from an army and economy focused game towards a game build around heroes. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On September 03 2024 04:51 Balnazza wrote: If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game. I haven t to lose my time in arguing against it... and tbh This is such an exaggerated affirmation that it cannot be true. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 04 2024 04:14 Vision_ wrote: I haven t to lose my time in arguing against it... and tbh This is such an exaggerated statement that it cannot be true. Then I will show you the respect that you lack and present you with the argument for it: The entire game of SC2 LotV is basically build and balanced around the idea of "get 3 bases and fight for your 4th". This statement varies a bit between the races and you can of course skip it with some sort of timing attack or allin, but it generally is true. Now, you can tweak the premise with the map, especially with rich minerals and geysires. Some maps make the goal harder for certain races than others. But when you casually stroll in and go "mhm, lets just have fewer bases lol" you disturb this entire core. If you go even further and decide fewer workers should be needed or the harassment of workers should be harder/easier because of other dynamics, you change the core. The only thing Blizzard did was increase the number of starting workers and that alone already sped up the game considerably and changed the first ~5 minutes of the game drastically...but of course, because Blizzard spend a lot of time on that idea, it was somewhat managed and probably a good change. But villy-nilly working on these changes because they are cool (which again, is your only argument) is just stupid. I can give you an example how one small, "cool" change can alter the entire dynamic of a game: In Warcraft 3, we had a map called 'Sea and Sand'. It was a fairly unnoteworthy map, but it had one crucial difference compared to any other 1v1: It had a Dragon Lair on the map. A Dragon Lair that offered a Level 10 Bronze Dragon as a mercenary. And suddenly, the entire dynamic of the game was changed. I think the Dragon had a starting cooldown of 12 minutes or something like that, but essentially the entire game boiled down to "who is at 12 minutes near the Dragon Lair and has the ressources to buy the Dragon?" Don't get me wrong, I personally loved the map, but it was ridicolous how many matches were immediately swung around because one party was able to buy the Dragon. Players hated the map, they vetoed it all the time and eventually we kicked it out of the pool after just one season. I still think the idea is cool, but it was just poorly implemented without much care. And that is a huge problem. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
Of course not, a lot of builds order have been cancelled but the core of the game still remains the same. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 04 2024 05:23 Balnazza wrote: Then I will show you the respect that you lack and present you with the argument for it: The entire game of SC2 LotV is basically build and balanced around the idea of "get 3 bases and fight for your 4th". This statement varies a bit between the races and you can of course skip it with some sort of timing attack or allin, but it generally is true. Now, you can tweak the premise with the map, especially with rich minerals and geysires. Some maps make the goal harder for certain races than others. But when you casually stroll in and go "mhm, lets just have fewer bases lol" you disturb this entire core. If you go even further and decide fewer workers should be needed or the harassment of workers should be harder/easier because of other dynamics, you change the core. The only thing Blizzard did was increase the number of starting workers and that alone already sped up the game considerably and changed the first ~5 minutes of the game drastically...but of course, because Blizzard spend a lot of time on that idea, it was somewhat managed and probably a good change. But villy-nilly working on these changes because they are cool (which again, is your only argument) is just stupid. I can give you an example how one small, "cool" change can alter the entire dynamic of a game: In Warcraft 3, we had a map called 'Sea and Sand'. It was a fairly unnoteworthy map, but it had one crucial difference compared to any other 1v1: It had a Dragon Lair on the map. A Dragon Lair that offered a Level 10 Bronze Dragon as a mercenary. And suddenly, the entire dynamic of the game was changed. I think the Dragon had a starting cooldown of 12 minutes or something like that, but essentially the entire game boiled down to "who is at 12 minutes near the Dragon Lair and has the ressources to buy the Dragon?" Don't get me wrong, I personally loved the map, but it was ridicolous how many matches were immediately swung around because one party was able to buy the Dragon. Players hated the map, they vetoed it all the time and eventually we kicked it out of the pool after just one season. I still think the idea is cool, but it was just poorly implemented without much care. And that is a huge problem. Speaking of WC3, I don’t think Blizz get enough credit for putting out an expansion that maybe massively improved the core game more than any I can think of Where in RoC you could avoid each other and power creep your hero, capping the levels you could generate via that method was capped to level 5 Units like hunts had armour type changes and really changed how the game was played too Also iirc stuff like your solo hero getting bonus exp based on your tech tier was a TFT change and made that kind of strat more viable too. I guess because both BW and TFT have been out way, way longer now than the gap between them and the base games we kinda almost think of them as the base game, but they really did a great job in fixing issues and adding new possibilities | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On September 05 2024 02:33 ejozl wrote: BW and TFT are both so damn amazing, I dno if it's just Rob Pardo that is a genius or what, but it's wild. HotS was big, but the changes weren't much what was needed, rather they started spinning in a direction which was first fulfilled imo with LotV. WoL have many things that I miss, but Lotv is better than hots, imo. First, it was a lot of small, rushy maps with nasty Terran timings. Then Zerg got Queen range +2, and could defend anything early with only minerals. Terrans got pushed out of the top of e-sports, while Protoss could go toe-to-toe with Zerg with well executed 2-base immortal timings, and dominated the top of the first WCS because of them. If Zerg reached BL/Infestor with 3-3 infested Terrans, it was over, but there were hopes of stupid archon toilet plays. PvP was about warp gate timing rushes or pin-pointing a forge timings in deathball clashes. Look back at some games, and get disappointed. I doubt you can even suffer through the first minutes of pure construction. WoL was not one thing, but several bad ones, from questionable to outright horrible. We tend to sugarcoat the past.  2012 Battle.net World Championship | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On September 05 2024 03:32 Slydie wrote: First, it was a lot of small, rushy maps with nasty Terran timings. Then Zerg got Queen range +2, and could defend anything early with only minerals. Terrans got pushed out of the top of e-sports, while Protoss could go toe-to-toe with Zerg with well executed 2-base immortal timings, and dominated the top of the first WCS because of them. If Zerg reached BL/Infestor with 3-3 infested Terrans, it was over, but there were hopes of stupid archon toilet plays. PvP was about warp gate timing rushes or pin-pointing a forge timings in deathball clashes. Look back at some games, and get disappointed. I doubt you can even suffer through the first minutes of pure construction. WoL was not one thing, but several bad ones, from questionable to outright horrible. We tend to sugarcoat the past. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/2012_Battle.net_World_Championship Yea I don't think people really appreciate just how much the game has evolved in a good way from Wings of Liberty. There's a reason that the popularity of the game absolutely cratered in 2012 and it doesn't all have to do with the rise of mobas. It's because the game's meta turned into an absolutely abysmal stale state of Infestor/Broodlord dominating everything. Blizzard never had any reason to adjust it because Heart of the Swarm was coming out, so if you could go back and try and play it, you'd be right back into that exact same meta. The economy changes we have now as well as numerous balance adjustments to individual units, have removed that deathball centric playstyle from every race except Protoss who still relies on it thanks to their faction being designed around Warp Gate and deathballs. We didn't move in that direction on accident. We did it because the game got incredibly stale and unfun when we were locked into those metas that were defined by specific late game deathball comps that were otherwise unbeatable. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 04 2024 17:21 Vision_ wrote: Did you feel an ENTIRE change when the number of workers change from 6 to 12 ? Of course not, a lot of builds order have been cancelled but the core of the game still remains the same. The game changed a lot through that "simple" change, but more importantly, the entire rest of the game was build around it. The new units were designed to work with the faster start (allowing for mid- to lategame units to be added that oherwise might come in too late), maps got adjusted, very early all-ins got nerfed. It wasn't just "lul, lets increase the amount of starting worker, that's fun." | ||
|
Archeon
3252 Posts
The games however were vastly worse than LotV. 3/4 of them were cheesefests and that was on a good day, people were much worse at defending cheeses and the much shorter maps made cheeses much easier to execute. It was quite often minerals being mined bunker rush one side looses. PvP was almost exclusively 4-gate rush until LotV, TvT were hour long siege tank lines shooting at each other and TvP was terran all-in after terran all-in only sometimes disrupted by P cheeses like 4-gate or dt-rush. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
The maps factor in a lot too. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 07 2024 05:38 ejozl wrote: They removed this high ground warp in. I was thinking of a map like taldarim altar, where there is no high ground, so the standard becomes 4gate vs. 4gate, if it's the only build, or the standard build, you cannot call it cheese. I mean it’s not cheese IMO but it’s not good either And in WoL, relative to the competition I had a tighter 4 gate than most. Indeed it was probably my strongest period ever in PvP, as I usually hit 1-2 seconds quicker than everyone else at my level. I had my 4 gate pretty close to the best pros in terms of timing in those days, was easy to grind it out vAI Still, wasn’t exactly fun | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
From a personal tought if the start of the game is good, then i see an interest in slightly slowing down economy between 6 and 7 minutes (which represent the benefit of income due to the natural expansion, and the 4-gates timing push). Then the idea would be to make those isolated violet rich mineral (note : a maximum of 9 workers are able to pass over cliffs) a little bit less productive than those benefits from a natural expansion in the current economy of SC2. This trough of the economy wave will be followed by a better income of the natural base; which means that the income graph curve will increase after the "bonus part of violet mineral". PS: The idea is also for creating a reward/risk in harvesting minerals. DETAIL OF THE MODEL Then my goal is to extend this first part of the main base in collecting ressource, problem can easily solved with maths. Which means that 8 workers + Show Spoiler + correction in the next paragraph - keep the same income at start - pressure for control ground of the battlefield In increasing the overall income from the first base up to as effective as 24 workers + Show Spoiler + After redo the maths, it s more about "7 workers start" with a income x 1.5 The other idea is to slow the duration time build of a SCV and increase his income (in order to keep the 12 workers start) but i m less confident in this idea. The reduction of base number could be a nerf for Zerg so i keep in my mind a modification that will increase the production of larva. Conclusion : base are now as effective as 24 workers, then You are controlling approximately a maximum of two bases (working simultaneously). So there would be 2 x 24 = 48 workers PLUS 9 workers for violet minerals, we can consider that those BIG workers are harvesting violet minerals two time faster than old workers. 7 workers start Buff for harvesting workers : x 1.5 (redo maths : x 1.4) BIG workers as effective as x 2 old worker | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
In most RTS, SC2 included, economy is the driving factor to leave your base. In fact, in SC2 it is extreme, since there are barely any other reasons to be active on the map except for increasing your economy and disturbing the opponents. The only other reason would be to secure certain map-positions (e.g. tank positioning). With that, SC2 is technically less dynamic than lets say WC3, where the creepspots and items on the map motivate you to leave your base, since these are ressources that are otherwise lost to your opponent (and rater quickly, too). So why does SC2 feel so much more dynamic than WC3? Because of much quicker, more numerous armies - and the fact that you have to spread out on the map fast. If you reduce the numbers of bases a player has to work with, you reduce the reasons to leave your base. I know, the idea is then to have these ominous cliff-walking workers, but how exactly would that work? Do you have your base on top (or below, whatever) the cliff and your workers just walk that little extra-step? Or do you not have a base at all and your workers just walk over half the map to get the ressources? Depending on that you open up a lot more questions (some even asked in this thread): Do you really enjoy the thought of babysitter workers that run all over the map? Wouldn't you need even more army standing by to do that, reducing your actual fighting force? Wouldn't these cliff-walkers nerf Protoss, considering that Protoss has the smallest armies and has the biggest need for static defense? If I understand you correctly, the numbers of workers would be reduced while the eco stays the same, so wouldn't that make Zerg stronger? Btw Zerg, how does this model balance out the fact that Zerg generally needs to be a base ahead? And while I know that it is a personal thing: I'm not a fan of exceptions. In SC2, both ressources work the same, you can put infinite workers on them. Sure, in a normal setting that is useless, but you *can* do it. So suddenly limiting your "cliff-walkers" to 9 is a block that feels unnatural. There are just so much questionmarks around this idea, while it doesn't even really do anything. If your only goal is to force players to be "more active on the map", then just create bigger, emptier maps. Increase the distance between the starting 3 bases and the 4th considerably and you get players out more - not that I think that that is a generally good idea though. | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
It could be impossible to take account some points of your questions like the dynamic of the bases especially because of the lack of support and test by now (actually working on the project, called project Leviathan, only maps are really modified in the first part until something balanced appear, maps will be called Lev_shakuras, Lev_metalopolis etc... i can only figure out to implement hydralisk T1 with one supply cost and look at the potoss defense as you suggest) If you point some real problems, i agree on the fact that one of the biggest problem is the "third base ahead" of zerg, I recently check all units armor in broodwar, there s not so many units with the "medium unit" tag (neither concussive or explosive damage), it appears that hydralisks are one of those few medium units. In fact it COULD be a no tag armor in SC2 (as there s only few no tag armor unit and for BW only few medium unit), i consider this idea as the first step to do in term of balance. + Show Spoiler + Units with bonus against light Protoss Phoenix Oracle Colossus Adept Terran Ghost Hellion / Hellbat Thor (vs. air, Explosive Payload only) Liberator (vs. air) Zerg Baneling | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
- Balance can't be it. SC2 is balanced (as good as balance in an assymetric Three-Race-RTS can be), so I highly doubt one guy randomly changing stats and gameplay mechanics will end up with a version of the game that is more balanced. - "The game should feel different"? Then play a different game or program a new one. Both are much more viable than trying to change something that works. - "It should feel more like SC1"? Then play SC:R - Or is it about players should be forced to be more active on the map? Then again, just do bigger maps with less ressources. Though honestly, if we ignore very lategame stages of the game, I personally think SC2 is already plenty active on the map, probably way too much for newer players. Change for the sake of change is the worst thing you can do for a game. If your changes don't have reason and are cohesive, they are in the end useless at best and harmful at worst. | ||
|
Blitzball04
141 Posts
On September 07 2024 23:33 Balnazza wrote: But you can see how this one change alone starts to ramp up the need for more and more changes. And here I'm back to my original point: None of these changes feel connected. They are just puzzle-pieces without any synergy. Because in the end, you haven't really answered what your Mod (at this point it should be clear that nothing of this will ever be implemented, so it will be a Mod in the end) is supposed to accomplish. - Balance can't be it. SC2 is balanced (as good as balance in an assymetric Three-Race-RTS can be), so I highly doubt one guy randomly changing stats and gameplay mechanics will end up with a version of the game that is more balanced. - "The game should feel different"? Then play a different game or program a new one. Both are much more viable than trying to change something that works. - "It should feel more like SC1"? Then play SC:R - Or is it about players should be forced to be more active on the map? Then again, just do bigger maps with less ressources. Though honestly, if we ignore very lategame stages of the game, I personally think SC2 is already plenty active on the map, probably way too much for newer players. Change for the sake of change is the worst thing you can do for a game. If your changes don't have reason and are cohesive, they are in the end useless at best and harmful at worst. Good post The worst offenders are usually the ones that keep saying “ “Mech was viable in sc1, therefore it must be viable in sc2”. Or “ make sc2 more like Sc1” Moral of the story, don’t like sc2? Go watch or play another game cause those guys are definitely in the minority. I know BW is still popular, but I literally can’t watch any match from beginning to end due to how slow and feel like it lack of skills compare to sc2 | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
One thing is strange to me, it s the high number of bases compared to the size of the map AND the repartition of these bases which are all near the border. Without too much explication, you can also see that the end game arrive soon in the expansion of your base, which means that for Terran or Protoss (avoid discuss zerg three base ahead by now), the third base setup match to the end game (in term of mineral income), and unfortunetly i say that the size of this three bases is too small for the stake of territory. Then, usually Zerg have been advantages by their vision so, they don t take enought risks also in the developpement of their strategy I have many reasons to think that the postion of the minerals field behind each base is ridiculous. I could have developped my argument a little bit if I hadn't wanted to give you an answer today | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 08 2024 05:24 Blitzball04 wrote: Good post The worst offenders are usually the ones that keep saying “ “Mech was viable in sc1, therefore it must be viable in sc2”. Or “ make sc2 more like Sc1” Moral of the story, don’t like sc2? Go watch or play another game cause those guys are definitely in the minority. I know BW is still popular, but I literally can’t watch any match from beginning to end due to how slow and feel like it lack of skills compare to sc2 Trying to make mech work has just never really done it for me in SC2, it’s not as engaging as it is in BW because they’re… different games. Mech in SC2 in phases where it’s been strong is just a deathball, a slightly slower deathball, but a deathball nonetheless. Which people complain about when other factions have deathball comps. It works great in BW, there’s a lot of interesting interactions. I’ve never really wanted that transplanted to SC2 because with the eco changes, control changes how do you kill a maxed mech ball? Either take to the air (not a fan of air ball metas), or circumvent it entirely. I’d highly dispute there’s a lack of skills compared to SC2 mind :p Marine-tank mirror is pretty darn fun, that’s something new and dynamic and really fits SC2. Has at least some of those positional elements I totally understand, and agree with bringing some of the elements that made BW mech so iconic over to SC2, absolutely. But some mech zealots other the years have been like has to be Terran, it has to be fac units, etc etc. I’d argue that some of the swarmhost metas were quite functionally similar to many of the mech staples. Immobile, bolstered with static D to cover the gaps, outranges everything on the ground. Pretty mechy I think with the game changes with the sequel, you’re left with two options. A mech that is oppressively frustrating to play against if it’s strong, or not very good but not completely useless. Ideally you can find a middle spot but of the two I’d much prefer the latter. It’s not like Blizz didn’t try over the years | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 08 2024 05:41 Vision_ wrote: I don t need to change SC2. I need to change the gameplay of SC2 because i m pretty sure the game could be better if the variaton of tasks is improved. The ground control is lacking, the repeatability of the game isn t enought trought my eyes that s why i m more focused on economy changes. The idea is clear : create a ressource which is spreading everywhere on the map while blue mineral field are concentrated locally, contrary to violet mineral field which cover the map ponctually but oftenly. One thing is strange to me, it s the high number of bases compared to the size of the map AND the repartition of these bases which are all near the border. Without too much explication, you can also see that the end game arrive soon in the expansion of your base, which means that for Terran or Protoss (avoid discuss zerg three base ahead by now), the third base setup match to the end game (in term of mineral income), and unfortunetly i say that the size of this three bases is too small for the stake of territory. Then, usually Zerg have been advantages by their vision so, they don t take enought risks also in the developpement of their strategy I have many reasons to think that the postion of the minerals field behind each base is ridiculous. I could have developped my argument a little bit if I hadn't wanted to give you an answer today How does having another resource that spawns far away from your base fix the issues you have with game flow, and Zerg particularly. Especially in ZvP, less so but still impactfully in ZvT. Zerg is faster-moving, often leveraged for a lot of map control. If you’re proposing more resources being spread in more peripheral areas, the faction with the superior map control/presence is going to benefit disproportionately. In the same vein, you don’t like worker harassment into standard concentrated mineral lines, but you’ve proposed worker gangs travelling around, carrying more resources per trip. This makes them an even juicier target to be taken out by harassment. If your goal is to encourage more movement around the map as you’ve stated, how is this facilitated by an almost obligatory requirement to babysit worker gangs. Which will likely see you be more, not less risk-averse I just don’t see how these ideas: 1. Fit together in combination 2, Are implementable without completely redesigning SC2 3. Even solve the issues they’re meant to solve They’re some interesting spitballing in a ‘if I was building an RTS I’d change some things about how resources traditionally work’. I’d read that blog if you gathered your ideas and laid them out in a concise, readable way. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
If you are casual, the game will be attractive because of the difference between muscle memory mecanics of players which are less impactfull. If you are pro then, a strategy has to be developped to react to an aggression at the border line of your territory. let s say a biiger vision range around those strategic point which allow pro to react because of the mini map. I don t know how easy are units on the minimap but this detail have his importance. Let s say also that these strategic point has to be defended by some defensive structure with a tiny buff (like spawn crawler or maybe don t require a worker to be built) Map control is the key of strategy, I'm not teaching you anything but you are right, there s a risk that players doesn t want to allow a multi tasking economy part in their favorite game, which would ask them to adapt to a new meta game. Another argument in my favor, it s the reduction of firerate from fastest to normal while all duration, cooldowns will be increased to fit their original speed (buildings keep their duration as it would be in 'fastest'). This will help players to decide of retreating unit and defending a specific point. And it s not so idiot to put in light the weakness of SC2 (like harassement) in order to find what don t work out, because it s the natural process : you make an error then it confirms what would have only be a doubt (and not a knowledge). Same for map control, you can argue that it s good as it is, i.e ping pong between two players, one attacks then the second counter, then counter the counter, i would agree with you it s already enought. But the game would be far interesting with two dimensions, not only fights happening on a single line. I also agree that each race are rich enought and there s not so much to add. Did you see any ultralisks be used in pro games ? You can answer that you don t care, they are used at master level and then i would agree also. However In decreasing firerate you would be able to understand exactly why ultralisks are cannon fooder at pro level. Catch workers is also specific by races and Zerg is favored : - Vision + workers burrowed Protoss have shield battery and observers which is also not bad for handle a pressure. Terran have walls. And in the end, i only see the same advantages which exist since the start of SC2, creep vision for Zerg. But the game does well so i m not afraid about balances because i consider thanks to SC2 evo complete that : - Vultures are far more interesting that hellions - Stalkers are in fact an harassement units My main bet is to get a mini-game paper-rock-cissor with zerglings, vultures and stalkers (with a faster and light stalker), and there are a lot of unknown as the possibility of stalker being not adapted to this new role (it s hard to find solution here but one part of my idea is to increase the cooldown of blink in order to have a less completely snowball unit, then you can push the stalkers to a more biased unit against light, here it would requires carefull modifications). Afterall, Blizzard have added adepts while their functions is really close to Stalkers, so why not | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
Do i need to add some more arguments ? | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 08 2024 18:09 Vision_ wrote: Now you see. Just take a look to the new thread of starcraft Recall and you will be convinced that ressource can be spread all over the map to promote ground control. Do i need to add some more arguments ? That entirely depends what you mean with "it works". Literally anything can "work". You could make a SC-Mod that has no ressources at all or one that has no armies at all and only ressources. It all can "work". But if you want to propose gameplay-changes to the real game, then no, none of this works. As for your post above: You yourself mentioned that your english isn't that good. But honestly, it isn't even your english, it is the fact that this is just gibberish. You are randomly throwing together points that often don't really have anything to do with each other. I don't know if all of these make sense in your head and are connected or if you just want to mention as much ideas as possible, but it isn't working. You want to slow the game down so it is more accessible, but then you want to create a ressource-scenario that sounds like an absolute nightmare to babysit (which is not a MOBA-term originally btw). Map control also isn't "ping-pong" at the moment, but technically both players can be aggressive and defensive at the same time - because of how the economy is build. And what even is "If you are casual, the game will be attractive because of the difference between muscle memory mecanics of players which are less impactfull" supposed to mean? As I said before: If you want to create a Mod, create a Mod. But do it like the Starcall-Guy. Just create it and don't present your ideas for the actual "main game", because they are clearly not working. And after you finish your Mod and release it, you can still ask for feedback and changes. But don't have "main bets" around how you think the game should be balanced with units that aren't even in the game (Vultures)... | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
We are talking about the idea of having a mod with mineral spread uniformly on the map and then, a creative boy do it and all you are able to do it s again discuss for the god sake. I can do anything for you if you aren t able to recognize a promising idea | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 09 2024 00:06 Vision_ wrote: It s funny how you are a hater. We are talking about the idea of having a mod with mineral spread uniformly on the map and then, a creative boy do it and all you are able to do it s again discuss for the god sake. I can do anything for you if you aren t able to recognize a promising idea You never really mentioned that you want to make a Mod, you always talked about Gameplay or balance changes for the main game. Your inability to even explain the base of your idea is not my fault. But hey, since I'm apparently a hater: There is no "promising idea". All you have presented so far are extremly bad, incohesive shards of thrown together ideas that have no standing whatsoever and would completly ruin the game if implemented, because they neither follow any balance-logic, nor do they take into account how SC2 gameplay is constructed. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually creating your Mod instead of rambling more incohesive nonsenses. Have fun, I'm curious how it will look eventually! | ||
|
Vision_
849 Posts
On September 09 2024 00:18 Balnazza wrote: You never really mentioned that you want to make a Mod, you always talked about Gameplay or balance changes for the main game. Your inability to even explain the base of your idea is not my fault. But hey, since I'm apparently a hater: There is no "promising idea". All you have presented so far are extremly bad, incohesive shards of thrown together ideas that have no standing whatsoever and would completly ruin the game if implemented, because they neither follow any balance-logic, nor do they take into account how SC2 gameplay is constructed. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually creating your Mod instead of rambling more incohesive nonsenses. Have fun, I'm curious how it will look eventually! You know what ? i don t care, i let you the last words | ||
|
Jealous
10105 Posts
On September 08 2024 05:24 Blitzball04 wrote: I know BW is still popular, but I literally can’t watch any match from beginning to end due to how slow and feel like it lack of skills compare to sc2 Holy fuck  | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 08 2024 23:06 Balnazza wrote: That entirely depends what you mean with "it works". Literally anything can "work". You could make a SC-Mod that has no ressources at all or one that has no armies at all and only ressources. It all can "work". But if you want to propose gameplay-changes to the real game, then no, none of this works. As for your post above: You yourself mentioned that your english isn't that good. But honestly, it isn't even your english, it is the fact that this is just gibberish. You are randomly throwing together points that often don't really have anything to do with each other. I don't know if all of these make sense in your head and are connected or if you just want to mention as much ideas as possible, but it isn't working. You want to slow the game down so it is more accessible, but then you want to create a ressource-scenario that sounds like an absolute nightmare to babysit (which is not a MOBA-term originally btw). Map control also isn't "ping-pong" at the moment, but technically both players can be aggressive and defensive at the same time - because of how the economy is build. And what even is "If you are casual, the game will be attractive because of the difference between muscle memory mecanics of players which are less impactfull" supposed to mean? As I said before: If you want to create a Mod, create a Mod. But do it like the Starcall-Guy. Just create it and don't present your ideas for the actual "main game", because they are clearly not working. And after you finish your Mod and release it, you can still ask for feedback and changes. But don't have "main bets" around how you think the game should be balanced with units that aren't even in the game (Vultures)... How do casuals play the game? And I mean genuine casuals. They don’t expand remotely as fast as the real competitively minded, much less than the pros Vision is extrapolating the game flow from how it’s played at the highest level, and making adjustments accordingly to appeal to casuals who largely don’t play like that. Ok we’ve changed how resources are distributed so you’re able to optimally mine off 2 bases now, but we’ve added this worker change to encourage you to move to the periphery. But at least you’re not stressed by trying to defend mineral lines across 4-5 bases, so problem solved right? Except casual players take a hell of a while to get to 4+ bases, or if they do it’s very unsafely done and only viable because opponents play quite passively. Even if one has long passed the point of playing at lower MMRs, just watch an episode or two of Harstem’s rather excellent ‘is it imba or do I suck?’ series that features anyone from like plat down. Some may watch the pros and you can see some of the ideas permeate down, but it’s a very different game at that level. You’re not swapping x for y here, you’re swapping turtling on 2/3 bases and having to guard workers in those locations with well, being on the same number of bases but now with having to babysit worker trains navigating the map. Which is going to be more mechanically taxing and require more multitasking in a cohort that already struggles with that facet of the game? To my knowledge, nowadays, perhaps not in the past, Vision neither watches tournament SC2, nor plays the game. Obviously nothing wrong with that! But how do you redesign a game if you don’t know how it is currently designed? | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 09 2024 04:23 WombaT wrote: How do casuals play the game? And I mean genuine casuals. They don’t expand remotely as fast as the real competitively minded, much less than the pros Vision is extrapolating the game flow from how it’s played at the highest level, and making adjustments accordingly to appeal to casuals who largely don’t play like that. Ok we’ve changed how resources are distributed so you’re able to optimally mine off 2 bases now, but we’ve added this worker change to encourage you to move to the periphery. But at least you’re not stressed by trying to defend mineral lines across 4-5 bases, so problem solved right? Except casual players take a hell of a while to get to 4+ bases, or if they do it’s very unsafely done and only viable because opponents play quite passively. Even if one has long passed the point of playing at lower MMRs, just watch an episode or two of Harstem’s rather excellent ‘is it imba or do I suck?’ series that features anyone from like plat down. Some may watch the pros and you can see some of the ideas permeate down, but it’s a very different game at that level. You’re not swapping x for y here, you’re swapping turtling on 2/3 bases and having to guard workers in those locations with well, being on the same number of bases but now with having to babysit worker trains navigating the map. Which is going to be more mechanically taxing and require more multitasking in a cohort that already struggles with that facet of the game? If you watch pros, I bet sometimes you have this "huh, when did he add another base?"-moment, because it often happens so nonchalantly, it is one of the absolute basic on pro-level. But as you said, this isn't how lower level players play the game. On lower levels, there is more of a "ah shit, my base starts to run out, I need an expansion!". Because on lower levels, you don't do all the things at the same time, you do them one at a time - which is true btw for all games. You don't harrass, expand, tech and build your army at the same time. Balancing economy is one of the most difficult things in any good RTS and usually the thing every low-to-mid level player sucks the most at. There is even a very great proof for that: In AoE 2, there are the Chinese. The Chinese are very unique compared to all the other 30ish races, because they start with more workers, but less food. And if you look at the stats, Chinese are absolutely giga-thrash on the lower skill-level. It is one of the worst races in the game. But the higher the Elo, the higher the winrate. It is an almost perfect curve. But why? Because lower level players often don't utilize their civs correctly, they play a very standard opening (that is mostly the same for all 30ish civs). But with Chinese, if you play standard, you are falling behind very quickly, so your worker-advantage turns into a worker-deficit. To my knowledge, nowadays, perhaps not in the past, Vision neither watches tournament SC2, nor plays the game. Obviously nothing wrong with that! But how do you redesign a game if you don’t know how it is currently designed? I mean, the answer for that is clearly "you don't". But this isn't really game-design, it rather is "I don't like SC2 at all but also don't want to look for a different RTS"... | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
I like many of his ideas, but they should be able to stand on its own without introducing other new ideas to justify them. I agree that the economy increase too much in the mid game, so much that z, and p cannot eek out enough advantage from a winning position, before the terran then gets into a similar position, but because of mules then get the superior economy and then proceeds to win the game . A true strider stalker sounds cool, but overlaps too much with the adept, and if you keep the +vs. armoured stalker, but change them to light tag, then they become absolute tank killers. I knew about hydra, lurker, vulture being medium and think it would be cool if they had removed armour tag, in exchange for lower attack range on the lurker, hydra. Lurker could have a major rework and this unit would become way cooler. Imagine a lurker with slower traveling spines, 30 dmg against all and was less hard countered by tanks and immos. They could be the true ambush unit and more powerful at controlling locations, due to killing all units better. But if microed against (avoiding spines) zerg would need to disengage and reinforce. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24250 Posts
On September 09 2024 14:48 ejozl wrote: If you don't like current sc2 go play another game, is not an argument. Many ppl have left over the years who had just as much passion as you, but because the game developed into something different they left. If I leave it's because there is no chance for P at the highest lvl. So should I play another game with a viable Protoss race? What if sc2 fit me more than sc1? I like many of his ideas, but they should be able to stand on its own without introducing other new ideas to justify them. I agree that the economy increase too much in the mid game, so much that z, and p cannot eek out enough advantage from a winning position, before the terran then gets into a similar position, but because of mules then get the superior economy and then proceeds to win the game . A true strider stalker sounds cool, but overlaps too much with the adept, and if you keep the +vs. armoured stalker, but change them to light tag, then they become absolute tank killers. I knew about hydra, lurker, vulture being medium and think it would be cool if they had removed armour tag, in exchange for lower attack range on the lurker, hydra. Lurker could have a major rework and this unit would become way cooler. Imagine a lurker with slower traveling spines, 30 dmg against all and was less hard countered by tanks and immos. They could be the true ambush unit and more powerful at controlling locations, due to killing all units better. But if microed against (avoiding spines) zerg would need to disengage and reinforce. Cool idea, but I think you run into SC2’s general problem with scaling. What is a cool, and manageable bit of micro/counter micro when armies are quite small, becomes prohibitively difficult to do as armies scale up. So what in theory is a cool, space-controlling unit that requires some finesse to use, and has counterplay, ends up even stronger in high numbers because the counterplay gets harder, so mitigating the unit’s weaknesses. For example, even a relative scrub like me can handle a disruptor or two. Their relatively high attack/ability cooldown, and being completely useless when on cooldown is a real weakness. Once you get to 5/6+ it’s a whole different ballgame (joke intended) for even pretty decent players. Keeping track of which are on cooldown or not is harder, mechanically dodging them is harder, balls are flying with more frequency at you. It’s not impossible, but most of us aren’t Clem, who can seemingly bat them away as if they’re an errant beach ball interrupting his picnic. To be clear, I do actually like the core idea but that would be my predicted effect of a harder-hitting lurker once we get into real late game/super late game territory. SC2 is still best in class when it comes to microability of units, it just gets much harder to do that when armies get bigger and it’s why deathballs of various forms have always been a cornerstone of the game | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1088 Posts
On September 09 2024 14:48 ejozl wrote: If you don't like current sc2 go play another game, is not an argument. Many ppl have left over the years who had just as much passion as you, but because the game developed into something different they left. If I leave it's because there is no chance for P at the highest lvl. So should I play another game with a viable Protoss race? What if sc2 fit me more than sc1? I'm not talking about balance-changes. "Unit x has y more/less range or damage or costs more/less ressources" doesn't change what kind of game SC2 is, that is more than fine. But if you need to change the entire economy and half the units first before you enjoy the game...find another game. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3339 Posts
| ||
| ||
