| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
I would really like it if the Colossus has a similar high-risk vs reward mechanic to it Why not add a 'charge up' attack to it, as in, it gets near the workers and you have like 1 second to evacuate before it 'charges' up its laser beam, and if you don't run with the workers it should kill like 4-5 with a single blow just a thought great and insightful post Storyteller | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
ilovehnk
475 Posts
On February 03 2009 06:42 minus_human wrote: its painfully obvious that the reaver is a huge tension creator, even if only in some matchups I would really like it if the Colossus has a similar high-risk vs reward mechanic to it Why not add a 'charge up' attack to it, as in, it gets near the workers and you have like 1 second to evacuate before it 'charges' up its laser beam, and if you don't run with the workers it should kill like 4-5 with a single blow just a thought great and insightful post Storyteller | ||
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
Gamjadori
Japan131 Posts
| ||
|
xhuwin
United States476 Posts
On February 03 2009 04:52 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm a little confused, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't really see the point of this post with regards to SC2. SC2's tension factor should be largely unchanged from the original SC, because the dynamics are much the same: there's the same fog of war, the same cloaked units, the same hidden proxies or expansions. These exciting contributors have been preserved, and intentionally so by the design team. It's really such a fundamental design concept, and it doesn't take much to identify these causes as keys to excitement from an observer's perspective. Many of SC2's units and racial features may be more convoluted than SC, and therefore perhaps more confusing to the average viewer, but the underlying feel of the game is maintained for players and spectators alike. Yeah I was wondering exactly why this is in the SC2 forum. But amazing post none the less. It reminded me of the different types of irony. Dramatic vs situational irony. | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
1. How does this affect SC2? The same basic elements of fog of war and so on are still there, but it's something to consider so that developers know how their decisions will affect SC2 as a spectator sport. Many people think that as long as it's a great game it's a great spectator sport, but that's not the case. To make something a good spectator sport requires some extra thinking. Mahjong, for instance, is a great game to play, but I really cannot see it being a good spectator sport. Football (soccer) is a very popular spectator sport, but if I were making Football II I would certainly change some rules to make it a little more exciting, especially when England plays (sorry). Or in poker, I think they do something to the size of the pot to encourage players to get involved in more hands because the audience likes it. So if there are moments when tension drops, it might be worthwhile trying to find ways to encourage players to take more risks and clash more. 2. Do FPVODs have tension? That's a different kind of tension, the one where you know as much as the player. If there was a commentator for this kind of VOD, he would have to say something like, "he's warping in his Citadel of Adun. He's committed to his DT rush. It's going to take 60 seconds for him to get his first DT out and the enemy could spot his strategy at any minute... if it is spotted, the chances of him winning the game are almost nil..." and you hope he doesn't get spotted. Whereas when you lift the fog of war, you get the tension of watching both players react to each other (or not). So it's "will A get spotted" and "will B spot/predict it", if that makes sense. Watching an FPVOD is like those movies where the camera follows only the main character. Of course, if you're watching it to learn, or if you already know the outcome, the tension is decreased. 3. Is there a time when the tension is decreased? Yep, as mentioned, fog of war alone is not enough to produce this kind of tension. The gameplay must have tension inherent in it. Often, as Boblion pointed out, tension drops after the 12th minute. Seeing a Templar Archive in minute 10 is not very exciting because there are several things it could mean, none of which are abnormal. Seeing a Templar Archive in minute 2 is very exciting, because there only one thing it could mean and that thing is a do or die strategy. And when they start macroing sometimes they stop fighting because they don't want to risk their armies. Definitely no tension there. And, of course, because of the fog of war, sometimes we know that the player is doomed but the player fights on for a good 3 minutes anyway. However, even without the massive battles tension is often still present as the players still fight for position, try to ambush drops and so on. So if there's a massive army sitting in one place and the other guy is heading straight for it and doesn't know... or if the drop ship is heading straight for the scourge... or if the recall is straight into a minefield... But the kind of things that produce tension change, and there are fewer of them, especially in TvT. 4. How does the reaver create tension? Because of its godawful AI, the reaver creates the kind of tension where you know only as much as the players. So when the reaver fires, EVERYONE is holding his breath. But when the reaver is being built, if the other guy doesn't know, you get the other kind of tension where you know more than the players. 5. Why don't I like Prison Break and 24 if there's so much tension? Tension isn't the only thing that makes a show good, and too much tension can be a bad thing. It's very subjective, but my guess is that for Prison Break Season 1, it became too formulaic after a while and the audience realised that the producers were "cheating". Every single episode would use the same trick to generate tension: Michael has to do something and has 5 minutes to do it and get back, he does it, cut to guard, dramatic music, audience thinks "he can't have made it back! It's too soon!", he's made it back. You get sick of that after a while. And some of that was just not realistic. You show him taking 4 minutes to get out of his cell and he's back in safely in 1? After a while, not showing Michael on his way back became a cheap trick to gloss over the inconvenient fact that you just can't run through a tunnel, clamber out of a hole in the wall, patch up the hole and jump inot bed in 30 seconds without the guard hearing. As for 24, I haven't watched a lot of it, but my guess is that some of the storylines are dragged on far too long. For instance, season 6 had a very obvious moment to end the story, but they had to drag it on to fill 24 episodes. | ||
|
RoC)Ninjah
United States238 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
I think it is very exciting when you can see that one player is winning, but the game is still very much up in the air and if he lets his guard down, he could lose it all. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
| ||
|
thesums
Taiwan257 Posts
1) Smart Casting 2) Unlimited grouping (buildings, and units) 3) Auto mining SCVs 4) Other help: such as showing idle workers on the screen, queuing of commands 1-4 shows the how SC2 is much easier now and it will not be like BW when people are so excited seeing multiple spells such as storms when progamers have to re-hotkey the units and then individually set off all the spells. Difficult maneuvers give more tension; will the player be able to pull it off? or won't he? I wish SC2 can become more difficult so that we can see a larger disparity between the good and the bad players. I want to watch a game and feel like "that is something I will not be able to do, even if I practice a lot". | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
