|
On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post?
|
On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post?
You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects.
Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or
You misquoted something.
|
On May 10 2009 00:57 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post? You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects. Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or You misquoted something.
As far as I can tell, he's talking about Browder's point about different rules on different maps being allegedly a bad thing, which the opposite of what's actually true for progaming maps in BW.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
I guess if they mean "we don't want any universal weather/day night effects", then that's good. But I hope they allow for easy implementation of it in maps..
|
Surprisingly good interview for a magazine, thanks a lot for the translation Aesop!
|
On May 10 2009 01:06 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 00:57 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post? You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects. Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or You misquoted something. As far as I can tell, he's talking about Browder's point about different rules on different maps being allegedly a bad thing, which the opposite of what's actually true for progaming maps in BW. ^ What he said.
That answer from Browder just shows he doesn't understand how the metagame evolved. He doesn't understand how important the maps are. So with the wrong idea in mind they will just lead the game development to the wrong side.
This is a much bigger issue than putting it triggers for weather on the map maker or not. Which btw, is not very likely to have some huge support and be super easy to implement to competitive tournament maps, since he just said he doesn't think it is important.
|
On May 10 2009 03:41 VIB wrote:
So with the wrong idea in mind they will just lead the game development to the wrong side.
There is no such wrong side. StarCraft metagame is governed by the custom maps. Why should any RTS including StarCraft II be any different?
If the only map in SC was Blood Bath, the current metagame would be which progamer could micro their SCV rush best.
|
On May 10 2009 03:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 01:06 maybenexttime wrote:On May 10 2009 00:57 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post? You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects. Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or You misquoted something. As far as I can tell, he's talking about Browder's point about different rules on different maps being allegedly a bad thing, which the opposite of what's actually true for progaming maps in BW. ^ What he said. That answer from Browder just shows he doesn't understand how the metagame evolved. He doesn't understand how important the maps are. So with the wrong idea in mind they will just lead the game development to the wrong side. This is a much bigger issue than putting it triggers for weather on the map maker or not. Which btw, is not very likely to have some huge support and be super easy to implement to competitive tournament maps, since he just said he doesn't think it is important.
I think TeamLiquid can just mention that in their monthly feedback, quoting him and explaining why his train of thought is wrong. I'm sure he'll understand and take that into account.
|
On May 10 2009 03:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 01:06 maybenexttime wrote:On May 10 2009 00:57 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post? You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects. Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or You misquoted something. As far as I can tell, he's talking about Browder's point about different rules on different maps being allegedly a bad thing, which the opposite of what's actually true for progaming maps in BW. ^ What he said. That answer from Browder just shows he doesn't understand how the metagame evolved. He doesn't understand how important the maps are. So with the wrong idea in mind they will just lead the game development to the wrong side. This is a much bigger issue than putting it triggers for weather on the map maker or not. Which btw, is not very likely to have some huge support and be super easy to implement to competitive tournament maps, since he just said he doesn't think it is important.
He is not talking about terrain with special features ffs, he is talking about global effects such as weather and day/night things which would change the fundamental laws of the game!
And that is totally worthless for map creators. Playing on different maps should not be like playing different patch versions of the game, microing a marine vs a zergling on open ground should feel the same on every damn map... (And if you do want that you always got the army editor built in...)
|
When I think the majority of the original SC team doesn't exist anymore this guy really doesn't inspire any confidence for me : (
Still waiting for it like hell though.
|
On May 10 2009 07:20 kasumimi wrote:
When I think the majority of the original SC team doesn't exist anymore this guy really doesn't inspire any confidence for me : (
Still waiting for it like hell though.
Just start worrying if he says there is actually no game map editor with the final game 
If the editor is really so damn powerful like they keep on iterating, we shouldn't worry too much.
|
although global weather can be questionable, there better be the ability to do different terrain. Having places where you can't see as far or walk slowly would definitely add to the game.
|
I think by the weather response he meant that maybe after 5 or 6 years if the progaming scene wants to try some new concept maps they can add some weather elements. So that way gameplay won't stagnate and the game will evolve just like sc1
|
On May 09 2009 06:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. Ehh, if it's not balanced they should just not have it in their ladder maps, they shouldn't remove the option Also, I don't see anything wrong with (possibly) being able to use your allies nydus channels. (IE not a dumb question)
I very much agree with FrozenArbiter, They should have the day night thing in the game for campaign editor, it would add a nice twist to the gameplay.
|
I would imagine it would be available in the editor, since it's supposed to include "everything and more" that War3 had.
|
I really liked Browder's answers to GameStar's often dumb questions.
|
On May 09 2009 15:20 lepape wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2009 06:39 MuR)Ernu wrote:Q: We are under the impression that there is more Micro in Sc2 than in part one. That is: We have to click more.
A: That's right, there is a lot of Micromanagement at the time being. If it stays that way depends ultimately on the beta test. Besides this, we have occupied ourselves extensively with Micro and Macromanagement - what the player must manage on a small scale, and what he can manage on a large scale - in the past months. Right now you have to do a lot by hand. For example, you trigger the Stalker's blink. Or you burrow and unburrow Roaches. Or you impede ground troups with the Disruptor's force field. This leads to a lot of Micromanagement, more than in SC1. Therefore, Sc2 plays out in a very complex way, especially towards the end of a match. But Macro should still stay important. Whoever does not cherish Micro can still earn victories. Especially by focussing on establishing a strong economy and then overunning your foe with a superior army.
HAV U HERD OF LURKERS? I HAS THEM IN BW. This is just bullshitting to make those who havent really played SC, to think that its true. Also in sc2 micro is 1a instead of 1a2a3a4a Actually, I think it's true that proper micro will feel more necessary, since every single freaking unit now seems to have clickable abilities that require your attention, pretty much like in Warcraft 3.
I'm really not liking the clickfest sort of micro we saw in War3 making its way to SC2. I prefer positional micro as in flanking, focus firing and such. It just feels like real micro and is much more interesting as you actually control how your units fight as opposed to having a competition of who can spend the most amount of spells in the shortest amount of time.
Just look at all the cool micro we see from units as mutas, goons and scourge, none of which have any abilities. And rines vs. lurkers is so fucking cool/skilled. Quickly spreading out your rines, running back and forth shooting at leapfrogging lurks etc. etc.
God I love micro in SC and god I hate micro in War3 :-(
|
On May 10 2009 07:01 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 03:41 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 01:06 maybenexttime wrote:On May 10 2009 00:57 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:45 VIB wrote:On May 10 2009 00:26 Latham wrote:On May 10 2009 00:20 VIB wrote:Q: But the day-night cycle and the weather effects wouldn't have any gameplay effects?
A: We talked about it, and even tested it, but the answer's: No. We do not want maps with differing rules. Just imagine a snowy area in which ground troops move more slowly. That would completely revert the balance. The Zerg would suffer a lot, since they are highly dependant on their speed. Or imagine rainy maps, on which the sight-range of flying units is reduced. The balance would be shaky and we would have to rebalance the races just because of the stupid rain. That might be an interesting idea for the future, but at the moment we don't want it. What a fucking huge lack of vision. -10 points credibility in Blizzard. Maps are what kept their first game balanced and running for a long time. We wouldn't be playing it today if LT and the hunters were our only options. It is the map makers that balances the meta game as it develops. The more tools the map makers have to work with to balance the meta game in the map. The better. Worst case scenario: simply don't use it. Terrible terrible damage.. Dude I think that day/night cycles and weather effects are going to be in, just that they won't affect any race in any way. They said their Map Editor will be pretty powerful, so I'd wager a guess that you could still add effects to cycles and weather. Did you even read half of what I said or did you just quoted some random post, typed some random words on the reply box, then hit Post? You quoted the Day and Night question. Then you proceeded to bitch about map balance. I responded that the map makers MIGHT HAVE THE OPTION to play around with day/night cycles and weather effects. Either I missed the point of bitching about map balance quoting a day&night cycle and weather effects, or You misquoted something. As far as I can tell, he's talking about Browder's point about different rules on different maps being allegedly a bad thing, which the opposite of what's actually true for progaming maps in BW. ^ What he said. That answer from Browder just shows he doesn't understand how the metagame evolved. He doesn't understand how important the maps are. So with the wrong idea in mind they will just lead the game development to the wrong side. This is a much bigger issue than putting it triggers for weather on the map maker or not. Which btw, is not very likely to have some huge support and be super easy to implement to competitive tournament maps, since he just said he doesn't think it is important. He is not talking about terrain with special features ffs, he is talking about global effects such as weather and day/night things which would change the fundamental laws of the game! And that is totally worthless for map creators. Playing on different maps should not be like playing different patch versions of the game, microing a marine vs a zergling on open ground should feel the same on every damn map... (And if you do want that you always got the army editor built in...)
QFT
|
On May 13 2009 19:45 Blyf wrote:
God I love micro in SC and god I hate micro in War3 :-(
There are fundamental differences that will make micro in War3 different from micro in SC1 and SC2:
- Controlling heroes. This one's obvious enough.
- High HP units + scroll of town portal means you'll get very few real fights between armies in which both choose to not run away.
- Gold income from 1 base is the same 30 seconds into the game as it is 5 mins into the game. This means fights in which you lose a large chunk of units are very crippling since it's very hard to recover; most of the time you only have one barracks (or equivalent).
- Because of the above point, players must always keep their armies tightly grouped up, and the only harassment you get is from the Blademaster because he has a get out of jail card if he gets caught.
I'm curious as to how Stalker micro will end up working, compared to Dragoon micro.
|
Hehe I enjoyed this answer:
"Hey, a super weapon that knocks everything out! Let's show that!" But when the tests began, we rather thought "Oh, a super weapon that knocks everything out. Not good."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
