|
On September 03 2013 05:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 05:24 Psychobabas wrote:
Yes of course Im saying to leave the mine cooldown and tank range as it is lol.
In rough numbers I'm proposing this:
Tank Siege mode fire:
*Keep the area of affect radius and range the same
*Single Target receives 100 damage (85+15 from upgrades???) +25 for shields.
*Area of effect damage: about 20 (this is flat throughout the radius)
Mine damage:
*Keep area of affect radius and range the same
*Target receives 75 damage.
*Units in inner circle (surrounding the target) receive 50 or so damage (1 shots lings still)
*Units in outter circle receive 25 or so damage (lings survive and can regenerate back to full health/ Zerg's mistake isnt punished so badly.)
I hope this makes sense, let me know what you think.
It's just way too strong of a buff for tanks. like the AoE gets buffed by over 50% in the outer area, the main target damage by 100-200%. we are talking about tank armies killing bio armies beforw they can get a shot off and 3-4 tanks oneshoting colossi, thors, ultras, archons... I mean, why build a seond base if 3tanks can kill a nexus in 15seconds.
Yeah the numbers Psychobabas wrote down just don't work.
I also was in favor of higher main target damage of tanks. But I see the following problem:
Split micro would be far less effective if the single target damage was higher. If Split of single units eat less shots, it will be far more difficult to break siege lines in TvT for example. And i kind of like how Siege tanks work in this MU right now.
I also have a few ideas to make mech work. Basically i think the mech units just do not work too well together and mech is far too weak in direct army confrontations in TvP especially. There are also a lot of problems with the various openings and timings, but i think the main problem of mech is that the core army just does not cut it. The army is very immobile and at the same time rather weak in direct confrontations against the right compositions. Chargelot, Archon
with immortals is just far too effective against any mech army. Its easier to build and remax, too cost effective in fights and far more mobile. Mech can and will only be viable if the tank HB composition can deal with these units far more cost effectively. My idea is to apply a few changes to the hellbat to create a better synergy between hellbats and other mech units.
Proposed changes to make mech more viable against this composition:
Hellbat: Remove bio tag, instead make it immune to friendly fire especially splash from tanks and mines, split attack in two attacks, adjust stats to make it a true "tank" (health up, damage down
Hellbats would deal better with the 3 toss ground units that kill mech right now: Archons do less damage, berserkers can be killed without dying from tanks splash, immortals shields take double damage from Hellbat attacks, the hellbats role would be to guard tanks from ground units while the tanks can deal their damage.
Tanks: A +dmg against shields can be used if testing shows that the increased synergy between HB and tanks is not enough to help mech in classic army confrontations.
Medivac: Too keep drops doable after HTs are on the field it there should be a "disable healing" function for medivacs that removes all the energy. The function should have a cooldown and a timer similar to deconstructing bunkers To prevent reactive energy removal. This feature is necessary because without the bio tag on BHs there are no units to dump Medi-energy into and they would pretty much always have full energy. In the average mech game you would have to build less medivacs. Starports could be used for other units.
Impact over all: If tanks and HBs were better at dealing with the ground based threats, it would automatically be easier to react to an air transition. Harassment with HB would be a bit less potent and volatile, but mech would also stand a better chance in direct army confrontations.
|
On September 03 2013 14:52 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 14:31 Rabiator wrote:On September 03 2013 12:35 ChristianS wrote:
Here's the thing with fighting the AI (or for that matter, the UI): winning at the game is always going to come down to a set of challenges the game gives you which you must overcome. That's the game's source of difficulty (and fun). So then the goal in game design is to have the player spending their time on fun challenges, rather than boring ones.
Sometimes the challenges a game presents are rooted in how hard it is to make the game do what you want it to (e.g. successfully performing a difficult combo in a fighting game). If this is a fun challenge, that's fun. But oftentimes such challenges are not very interesting, just rote actions that take a lot of tedious practice to get right. Then if with better technology you can help make those challenges easier, and put the difficulty of the game into more fun and interesting problems, that would be an improvement.
For instance, it is my personal opinion that individually selecting a whole bunch of barracks and hitting 'm' every x seconds isn't really fun gameplay. Some people are of a different opinion, but it seems as though the majority of RTS gamers seem to agree with me. TL has a big faction of old Brood War players who disagree, and it's not as though having to select buildings individually doesn't have interesting strategic implications. It puts a much higher premium on APM so that even at the top level most players can't macro perfectly and micro perfectly at the same time, so you're forced to choose at any given time what is the most important way to spend your attention. You can even make strategic decisions with the sole intention of drawing your opponent's attention somewhere else so you can waste their attention (at the expense of your own, of course).
That said, it makes one of the most important deciding factors in who will win become APM. For a long time, BW tournaments were won more based on superior mechanics than on anything else. Not only does that mean that a lot of strategic elements couldn't develop properly until players' mechanics reached a point where they could reasonably keep up with all the game's actions for a lot of the early game, but also that means that becoming capable of playing the game takes a HUGE overhead of really tedious practice. So, in my opinion, MBS is a good thing, although there's still plenty of high-post-count TL denizens who disagree with a great deal of passion. I'd say that MBS isnt the "big evil", because only with the gigantic economy of SC2 do you arrive at a game where you spend more time rebuilding troops than actually in battle. The battles have become far too short and that turns the units into "throw away units" for a large part and I much prefer to have a chance for unit micro being useful for saving units. Even with Blink micro in a battle players only save "small clumps" instead of individual units, so there isnt much precision there. If you have low production due to a low economy you need to try and keep your units alive. This is something which requires skill to pull off. If you have high production and large and tightly clumped units you cant really keep units alive through micro and the only thing that becomes important is your reproduction capability. You cant affect this with skill, because it has fixed build times and costs. Thus a "low unit count game" brings a feeling of nervousness to your stomach which a "high unit count game" doesnt do. tl;dr Low economy/small army games are better, because they force micro and add tension to your stomach. SC2 is a high economy/large army game, BW wasnt. Big battles have plenty of micro. In fact, they usually have more possible micro than any player can actually do, so you're forced to pick and choose which actions will be more valuable. Small battles don't have as much micro, but you can more reasonably hope to micro all your units optimally. So in small battles you'll make decisions to save or kill an individual unit (e.g. right-clicking a couple marauders onto a different stalker to prevent overkill), whereas in big battles you'll make decisions like "if I blink them, I can save this bunch of stalkers. Or I could right-click that zealot between those doodads to try and keep it alive longer, but saving the stalkers seems more important." Less precision, higher stakes. Maxing out production to a level where you don't really need more is pretty easy. At that point players win games with micro and positioning, just like they would in a small-economy game. I don't quite understand why you're arguing that BW is better than SC2 because SC2 games are determined by production where BW games are determined by micro; BW is a much easier game to win purely by outmacroing your opponent. Macroing is easier in SC2 than in BW, which means that in BW you could gain a lot more advantage by getting really good at macro. In SC2 sheer macro is still valuable, but because macroing is so much easier, the practical difference between good macro and really good macro is smaller.
Big battles only have "big clump micro" ... which more often than not is optional. Small battles require micro, because units need to focus fire to have an advantage. In large battles your focus fire target dies far too fast to keep up.
On September 03 2013 21:15 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 05:45 Big J wrote:On September 03 2013 05:24 Psychobabas wrote:
Yes of course Im saying to leave the mine cooldown and tank range as it is lol.
In rough numbers I'm proposing this:
Tank Siege mode fire:
*Keep the area of affect radius and range the same
*Single Target receives 100 damage (85+15 from upgrades???) +25 for shields.
*Area of effect damage: about 20 (this is flat throughout the radius)
Mine damage:
*Keep area of affect radius and range the same
*Target receives 75 damage.
*Units in inner circle (surrounding the target) receive 50 or so damage (1 shots lings still)
*Units in outter circle receive 25 or so damage (lings survive and can regenerate back to full health/ Zerg's mistake isnt punished so badly.)
I hope this makes sense, let me know what you think.
It's just way too strong of a buff for tanks. like the AoE gets buffed by over 50% in the outer area, the main target damage by 100-200%. we are talking about tank armies killing bio armies beforw they can get a shot off and 3-4 tanks oneshoting colossi, thors, ultras, archons... I mean, why build a seond base if 3tanks can kill a nexus in 15seconds. Yeah the numbers Psychobabas wrote down just don't work. I also was in favor of higher main target damage of tanks. But I see the following problem: Split micro would be far less effective if the single target damage was higher. If Split of single units eat less shots, it will be far more difficult to break siege lines in TvT for example. And i kind of like how Siege tanks work in this MU right now.
Why wouldnt the "large numbers" work? Seriously ... THINK about it. You are most likely forgetting about the ridiculously tiny core area of effect AND the friendly fire of the Siege Tank.
Tanks would become something you actually FEAR but can abuse ... which the Terran then has to protect against. In short it would add a lot more requirements on playing with/against tanks and liven up the gameplay.
On September 03 2013 17:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 17:00 ChristianS wrote:
I doubt Rabiator wants WC3, WC3 had multiple building selection. And personally, I have no problem with the current game engine. I doubt he wants WC3, because WC3 wasn't Broodwar.
And yet another hollow and idiotic remark from you which shows your stupidity. You fail to try and prove me wrong so far and yet keep on claiming that I want "BW for BW's sake" and not because X, Y and Z aspects were actually making the game easier to play and balance.
WC3 has one thing which Starcraft doesnt: Formations. This is an "automatic thing" and IMO it would be as terrible as autoclumping if it ever was added to Starcraft ... most certainly with SC2's unlimited unit selection. WC3 had low numbers of units on each side and the game had a great fanbase ... just as BW did. See Big J? You dont need massive numbers for an awesome and interesting game.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Big battles only have "big clump micro" ... which more often than not is optional. Small battles require micro, because units need to focus fire to have an advantage. In large battles your focus fire target dies far too fast to keep up.
Oh ye... it's not you cannot split marines or kite unless there are less than 10 of 'em /sarcasm
Why wouldnt the "large numbers" work? Seriously ... THINK about it. You are most likely forgetting about the ridiculously tiny core area of effect AND the friendly fire of the Siege Tank.
Because 13 range. Also, Psychobalas talked about doing that amount of damage IN WHOLE area of splash tank does and it is large enough to be godly combined with range.
WC3 has one thing which Starcraft doesnt: Formations. This is an "automatic thing" and IMO it would be as terrible as autoclumping if it ever was added to Starcraft ... most certainly with SC2's unlimited unit selection. WC3 had low numbers of units on each side and the game had a great fanbase ... just as BW did. See Big J? You dont need massive numbers for an awesome and interesting game.
MOBA's have heroes, WC3 has heroes... Should SC2 have heroes because those games have great (as in size) fanbases? Also, unlimited unit selection is completely irrelevant in to changed (and improved) pathing, since all it would do is increase APM requirements to do simple actions and ACTUALLY lower the amount of micro involved most of time.
And yet another hollow and idiotic remark from you which shows your stupidity. You fail to try and prove me wrong so far and yet keep on claiming that I want "BW for BW's sake" and not because X, Y and Z aspects were actually making the game easier to play and balance.
Did i just hear that BW was easier to play? About balance... BW after the last balance patch was suddenly balanced by mapmakers. Check out maps that final of Arena MSL was played on, if you do not believe.
|
On September 03 2013 23:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 17:06 Big J wrote:On September 03 2013 17:00 ChristianS wrote:
I doubt Rabiator wants WC3, WC3 had multiple building selection. And personally, I have no problem with the current game engine. I doubt he wants WC3, because WC3 wasn't Broodwar. And yet another hollow and idiotic remark from you which shows your stupidity. You fail to try and prove me wrong so far and yet keep on claiming that I want "BW for BW's sake" and not because X, Y and Z aspects were actually making the game easier to play and balance. WC3 has one thing which Starcraft doesnt: Formations. This is an "automatic thing" and IMO it would be as terrible as autoclumping if it ever was added to Starcraft ... most certainly with SC2's unlimited unit selection. WC3 had low numbers of units on each side and the game had a great fanbase ... just as BW did. See Big J? You dont need massive numbers for an awesome and interesting game.
I fail to "prove you wrong"? On what? That Broodwar was a better game? Disproven, I like SC2 more, therefore BW cannot be a universally better game. That you need those gameplay mechanics to make a good game? Disproven, SC2 is a very good game. That crowd control spells are universally bad for the game? Disproven, Fungal is not used in HotS TvZ, yet WoL TvZs were more exciting to watch.
You say BW was easier to play than SC2. Well, I have never ever heard anybody agree with that sentiment. We had that shit already and people were making fun of you for claiming that. No, BW was not easier to play.
|
nono Big J, you are going to make him repeat his points again.
But I can do it for you, just to save everyone's time:
Mass economy - (not sure what he is thinking here lol)
Mass production - (completely ignoring what units can be remaxed quickly. it seems he thinks just because zerg/protoss can remax into max supply faster means zerg/protoss has an advantage over terran)
Smart casting - (because watching a ghost landing a emp is better than a ghost landing a emp for spectator.)
Pathing - (? not sure why at all, better players split their units up and bad players don't)
unlimited control group - (again, not so sure why he thinks that's bad. maybe because he thinks it's why we have deathball?)
unit density (his stalker vs marine example) - (he seems to think unit density is a problem because stalker doesn't scale as well as marine due to the density of the ball. I guess he forgot about HTs and Colossus that are meant to deal better against a highly densed ball like the bio ball...)
Basically he just doesn't like the game and everything is bad.
surely if a game is great with small number of units, then a game with high number of units can't be good?
|
Tanks are the issue... They are too weak, making terran 1 dimensional in tvp and tvz... the new hots units only made the situation worse. BUFF TANKS! (not necessarily their damage, a creative solution would be better)
|
Warpgate change! Been batting around with this idea for awhile, what's your thought?
Warpgate: Warp in units anywhere a power field exists. Any units built in this way will start with 0 shields and 0 energy, and will be unstealthed for 5 seconds. Researching Warpgate reduces the build time on standard gateways to the same build time as warpgates.
With this change allows an old friend to come back:
Khydarin Amulet is once again researchable at the Templar Archives
The problem with KA before wasn't KA itself. It was KA + WG. Being able to warp-in, storm, die/convert to archons was OP as shit.
But now, in this situation, regardless of KA or not, HT's warp in with 0 energy. This is still okay though, because:
Energy regenerates at 25 energy per 45 seconds. Warped in HT's used to have 50 energy, and WG took 45 seconds to finish cooling down, totalling 75 energy. Guess how much energy a standard gateway HT built over 45 seconds would have if we had KA? That's right 75 energy.
Units are essentially warped in EMP'd. A zealot has 66% of its normal health; everything else has 50% of its normal health. DT's aren't even cloaked at the start. Just how quickly do protoss units melt when they're EMP'd? Oh yeah, f*cking fast.
And now what happens to sentries? Well, you can't really warp them in offensively, since they'll have zero energy, and who would want an expensive unit like that solely for its tickle beam?
The net result is that you have to build your energy units from regular gates, which is fine for sentries, since that's when you tend to make most of them, in the early game. HT's now have to be built from regular gateways or you gotta wait a LONG time for it to do damage. This isn't really much different than the other high tiered protoss units: Robo and Stargate units already have to build up, now HT's would have to as well.
The weakened warp-in units, combined with the 'inability' to spawn more forcefields than you start with allows for a stronger defender's advantage against protoss units. Just think how immortal sentry all-ins would've looked if you only had what you started with. Provided it wasn't Parting, you probably have a considerably better chance against it (but if it was Parting, well then ... f*ck I'm sorry).
TL;DR: Units are warped in as if they were just EMP'd (no shields, no energy, DT's revealed). Researching Warpgate reduces build time on regular Gateways by the same amount as the warpgate reduction.
|
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If no smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence.
|
On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence.
Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse?
|
On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse?
why are people like you allowed to post again?
|
On September 03 2013 23:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 14:52 ChristianS wrote:On September 03 2013 14:31 Rabiator wrote:On September 03 2013 12:35 ChristianS wrote:
Here's the thing with fighting the AI (or for that matter, the UI): winning at the game is always going to come down to a set of challenges the game gives you which you must overcome. That's the game's source of difficulty (and fun). So then the goal in game design is to have the player spending their time on fun challenges, rather than boring ones.
Sometimes the challenges a game presents are rooted in how hard it is to make the game do what you want it to (e.g. successfully performing a difficult combo in a fighting game). If this is a fun challenge, that's fun. But oftentimes such challenges are not very interesting, just rote actions that take a lot of tedious practice to get right. Then if with better technology you can help make those challenges easier, and put the difficulty of the game into more fun and interesting problems, that would be an improvement.
For instance, it is my personal opinion that individually selecting a whole bunch of barracks and hitting 'm' every x seconds isn't really fun gameplay. Some people are of a different opinion, but it seems as though the majority of RTS gamers seem to agree with me. TL has a big faction of old Brood War players who disagree, and it's not as though having to select buildings individually doesn't have interesting strategic implications. It puts a much higher premium on APM so that even at the top level most players can't macro perfectly and micro perfectly at the same time, so you're forced to choose at any given time what is the most important way to spend your attention. You can even make strategic decisions with the sole intention of drawing your opponent's attention somewhere else so you can waste their attention (at the expense of your own, of course).
That said, it makes one of the most important deciding factors in who will win become APM. For a long time, BW tournaments were won more based on superior mechanics than on anything else. Not only does that mean that a lot of strategic elements couldn't develop properly until players' mechanics reached a point where they could reasonably keep up with all the game's actions for a lot of the early game, but also that means that becoming capable of playing the game takes a HUGE overhead of really tedious practice. So, in my opinion, MBS is a good thing, although there's still plenty of high-post-count TL denizens who disagree with a great deal of passion. I'd say that MBS isnt the "big evil", because only with the gigantic economy of SC2 do you arrive at a game where you spend more time rebuilding troops than actually in battle. The battles have become far too short and that turns the units into "throw away units" for a large part and I much prefer to have a chance for unit micro being useful for saving units. Even with Blink micro in a battle players only save "small clumps" instead of individual units, so there isnt much precision there. If you have low production due to a low economy you need to try and keep your units alive. This is something which requires skill to pull off. If you have high production and large and tightly clumped units you cant really keep units alive through micro and the only thing that becomes important is your reproduction capability. You cant affect this with skill, because it has fixed build times and costs. Thus a "low unit count game" brings a feeling of nervousness to your stomach which a "high unit count game" doesnt do. tl;dr Low economy/small army games are better, because they force micro and add tension to your stomach. SC2 is a high economy/large army game, BW wasnt. Big battles have plenty of micro. In fact, they usually have more possible micro than any player can actually do, so you're forced to pick and choose which actions will be more valuable. Small battles don't have as much micro, but you can more reasonably hope to micro all your units optimally. So in small battles you'll make decisions to save or kill an individual unit (e.g. right-clicking a couple marauders onto a different stalker to prevent overkill), whereas in big battles you'll make decisions like "if I blink them, I can save this bunch of stalkers. Or I could right-click that zealot between those doodads to try and keep it alive longer, but saving the stalkers seems more important." Less precision, higher stakes. Maxing out production to a level where you don't really need more is pretty easy. At that point players win games with micro and positioning, just like they would in a small-economy game. I don't quite understand why you're arguing that BW is better than SC2 because SC2 games are determined by production where BW games are determined by micro; BW is a much easier game to win purely by outmacroing your opponent. Macroing is easier in SC2 than in BW, which means that in BW you could gain a lot more advantage by getting really good at macro. In SC2 sheer macro is still valuable, but because macroing is so much easier, the practical difference between good macro and really good macro is smaller. Big battles only have "big clump micro" ... which more often than not is optional. Small battles require micro, because units need to focus fire to have an advantage. In large battles your focus fire target dies far too fast to keep up. Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 21:15 submarine wrote:On September 03 2013 05:45 Big J wrote:On September 03 2013 05:24 Psychobabas wrote:
Yes of course Im saying to leave the mine cooldown and tank range as it is lol.
In rough numbers I'm proposing this:
Tank Siege mode fire:
*Keep the area of affect radius and range the same
*Single Target receives 100 damage (85+15 from upgrades???) +25 for shields.
*Area of effect damage: about 20 (this is flat throughout the radius)
Mine damage:
*Keep area of affect radius and range the same
*Target receives 75 damage.
*Units in inner circle (surrounding the target) receive 50 or so damage (1 shots lings still)
*Units in outter circle receive 25 or so damage (lings survive and can regenerate back to full health/ Zerg's mistake isnt punished so badly.)
I hope this makes sense, let me know what you think.
It's just way too strong of a buff for tanks. like the AoE gets buffed by over 50% in the outer area, the main target damage by 100-200%. we are talking about tank armies killing bio armies beforw they can get a shot off and 3-4 tanks oneshoting colossi, thors, ultras, archons... I mean, why build a seond base if 3tanks can kill a nexus in 15seconds. Yeah the numbers Psychobabas wrote down just don't work. I also was in favor of higher main target damage of tanks. But I see the following problem: Split micro would be far less effective if the single target damage was higher. If Split of single units eat less shots, it will be far more difficult to break siege lines in TvT for example. And i kind of like how Siege tanks work in this MU right now. Why wouldnt the "large numbers" work? Seriously ... THINK about it. You are most likely forgetting about the ridiculously tiny core area of effect AND the friendly fire of the Siege Tank. Tanks would become something you actually FEAR but can abuse ... which the Terran then has to protect against. In short it would add a lot more requirements on playing with/against tanks and liven up the gameplay. Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 17:06 Big J wrote:On September 03 2013 17:00 ChristianS wrote:
I doubt Rabiator wants WC3, WC3 had multiple building selection. And personally, I have no problem with the current game engine. I doubt he wants WC3, because WC3 wasn't Broodwar. And yet another hollow and idiotic remark from you which shows your stupidity. You fail to try and prove me wrong so far and yet keep on claiming that I want "BW for BW's sake" and not because X, Y and Z aspects were actually making the game easier to play and balance. WC3 has one thing which Starcraft doesnt: Formations. This is an "automatic thing" and IMO it would be as terrible as autoclumping if it ever was added to Starcraft ... most certainly with SC2's unlimited unit selection. WC3 had low numbers of units on each side and the game had a great fanbase ... just as BW did. See Big J? You dont need massive numbers for an awesome and interesting game.
Tanks with a higher single target damage would make split micro or large flanks far less effective against them. A single Unit would only be able to absorb just one shot instead of several right now.
The tank is a unit that shines if it is able to fire at an enemy while the enemy can't fire back. My proposal was to change the Hellbat into a unit that pretty much stands in front of tanks and absorbs damage while the tanks deal the damage. I think that kind of dynamic would be interesting. For me the switch between tank and mine damage is totally random. If tanks had very high single target damage it would be a very big change to the role of the tank. If it had powerful splash together with powerful single target damage it would be absolutely dominant against every ground unit. Sorry but i think you have either not thought about this or you are totally ignorant.
|
On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again?
Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect.
I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result.
|
On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result.
TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI.
|
On September 03 2013 23:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 14:52 ChristianS wrote:On September 03 2013 14:31 Rabiator wrote:On September 03 2013 12:35 ChristianS wrote:
Here's the thing with fighting the AI (or for that matter, the UI): winning at the game is always going to come down to a set of challenges the game gives you which you must overcome. That's the game's source of difficulty (and fun). So then the goal in game design is to have the player spending their time on fun challenges, rather than boring ones.
Sometimes the challenges a game presents are rooted in how hard it is to make the game do what you want it to (e.g. successfully performing a difficult combo in a fighting game). If this is a fun challenge, that's fun. But oftentimes such challenges are not very interesting, just rote actions that take a lot of tedious practice to get right. Then if with better technology you can help make those challenges easier, and put the difficulty of the game into more fun and interesting problems, that would be an improvement.
For instance, it is my personal opinion that individually selecting a whole bunch of barracks and hitting 'm' every x seconds isn't really fun gameplay. Some people are of a different opinion, but it seems as though the majority of RTS gamers seem to agree with me. TL has a big faction of old Brood War players who disagree, and it's not as though having to select buildings individually doesn't have interesting strategic implications. It puts a much higher premium on APM so that even at the top level most players can't macro perfectly and micro perfectly at the same time, so you're forced to choose at any given time what is the most important way to spend your attention. You can even make strategic decisions with the sole intention of drawing your opponent's attention somewhere else so you can waste their attention (at the expense of your own, of course).
That said, it makes one of the most important deciding factors in who will win become APM. For a long time, BW tournaments were won more based on superior mechanics than on anything else. Not only does that mean that a lot of strategic elements couldn't develop properly until players' mechanics reached a point where they could reasonably keep up with all the game's actions for a lot of the early game, but also that means that becoming capable of playing the game takes a HUGE overhead of really tedious practice. So, in my opinion, MBS is a good thing, although there's still plenty of high-post-count TL denizens who disagree with a great deal of passion. I'd say that MBS isnt the "big evil", because only with the gigantic economy of SC2 do you arrive at a game where you spend more time rebuilding troops than actually in battle. The battles have become far too short and that turns the units into "throw away units" for a large part and I much prefer to have a chance for unit micro being useful for saving units. Even with Blink micro in a battle players only save "small clumps" instead of individual units, so there isnt much precision there. If you have low production due to a low economy you need to try and keep your units alive. This is something which requires skill to pull off. If you have high production and large and tightly clumped units you cant really keep units alive through micro and the only thing that becomes important is your reproduction capability. You cant affect this with skill, because it has fixed build times and costs. Thus a "low unit count game" brings a feeling of nervousness to your stomach which a "high unit count game" doesnt do. tl;dr Low economy/small army games are better, because they force micro and add tension to your stomach. SC2 is a high economy/large army game, BW wasnt. Big battles have plenty of micro. In fact, they usually have more possible micro than any player can actually do, so you're forced to pick and choose which actions will be more valuable. Small battles don't have as much micro, but you can more reasonably hope to micro all your units optimally. So in small battles you'll make decisions to save or kill an individual unit (e.g. right-clicking a couple marauders onto a different stalker to prevent overkill), whereas in big battles you'll make decisions like "if I blink them, I can save this bunch of stalkers. Or I could right-click that zealot between those doodads to try and keep it alive longer, but saving the stalkers seems more important." Less precision, higher stakes. Maxing out production to a level where you don't really need more is pretty easy. At that point players win games with micro and positioning, just like they would in a small-economy game. I don't quite understand why you're arguing that BW is better than SC2 because SC2 games are determined by production where BW games are determined by micro; BW is a much easier game to win purely by outmacroing your opponent. Macroing is easier in SC2 than in BW, which means that in BW you could gain a lot more advantage by getting really good at macro. In SC2 sheer macro is still valuable, but because macroing is so much easier, the practical difference between good macro and really good macro is smaller. Big battles only have "big clump micro" ... which more often than not is optional. Small battles require micro, because units need to focus fire to have an advantage. In large battles your focus fire target dies far too fast to keep up.
Umm... I'm not sure to what matchup you're referring.
TvT: Lots of load/unload micro in midst of a battle. Banshee kite micro early game, and bio has quite a bit of splitting micro vs. mech, otherwise mech vs. mech isn't very micro-intensive, because TvT is classically about positioning above all else (including micro).
TvZ: Splitting micro is absolutely necessary on both sides. With infestors in the mix Terran must dodge fungals, or else die to fungal -> banelings. Zerg has to try to split off individual lings, or clumps of lings, or overseers/overlords, depending on the situation, to eat mine shots so a massive clump of banelings doesn't just get blown up and end the game.
TvP: Splitting micro and kiting micro from the Terran. Viking positioning is paramount against robo, ghost positioning and micro is essential vs. templar. To be clear, there's nothing optional about this; Terran must micro or die. Protoss's position is a little different, but mostly he can get some coin-flippy build order wins with, say, building 4 colossi and attack moving. But otherwise, he has to do something fancy to come out ahead in a battle. That means hiding templar somewhere on the map and flanking for a great storm, or warping in zealots behind the Terran and surrounding, or forcefielding around the entire Terran army and then blinking in and killing the medivacs when he tries to pick up and leave.
PvP: Possibly the most micro-intensive matchup in the game. I don't know much about it, since I play T, but it sure seems strange to say PvP battles don't require micro. Focusing immortals on colossi, blinking stalkers to the right places, focus fire to avoid overkill on tempests... just about the only composition where micro would be optional like you suggested is zealot/archon.
PvZ: Midgame battles it tends to be blink and forcefield micro from Protoss. Zerg is more about controlling the map and identifying Protoss's build than micro at this stage. Lategame this depends a lot on composition; swarm hosts are not a terribly micro-intensive unit, but infestors are actually quite difficult micro. Vipers seem straightforward, but actually take a lot of positioning to get right. Still, Protoss never has a battle in PvZ where he's allowed to just not micro (except maybe a pure gateway/colossus composition, but it would still be a lot stronger with some micro elements like forcefields, blink, etc.), and Zerg generally has to micro lategame.
ZvZ: Ling/bane vs. ling/bane is some of the hardest micro in the game, but admittedly if you get to roach vs. roach it's not very micro intensive.
Thus in the majority of lategame fights in SC2, micro is anything but optional. There's always higher-level micro available that is more optional, but still helps out, for instance picking up and unloading marauders in weird places to eat colossus shots, or focus-firing immortals on marauders. And there's levels of micro virtually no one does, like kiting with two different groups of MMM in two different directions versus zealots or burrowing injured roaches so they can recover and rejoin the fight later.
|
On September 04 2013 05:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result. TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI.
Who brought up Dune? It's a fair point. If it's more exciting when doing something is harder than it used to be, then is it more exciting if we make it WAY harder?
|
On September 04 2013 05:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result. TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI.
Are you trying to troll me, or do you just not have an answer?
I have no idea what you're talking about with Dune. I just don't think making the UI harder would make for a better game in any respect.
|
On September 04 2013 05:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:54 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result. TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI. Who brought up Dune? It's a fair point. If it's more exciting when doing something is harder than it used to be, then is it more exciting if we make it WAY harder?
If you make something harder then doing it correctly is exciting, yeah. It's not controversial.
I didn't claim it was a good change for the game overall, so if people start to insult my intelligence with "how about if you had to solve derivatives while playing blindly standing upside down, would that be more exciting?" I consider them annoying.
Dune 2 supposedly requires a lot of mindless clicking, historically people that complained about MBS and AM being introduced to SC2 were made fun of by pretending they would like Dune 2.
|
On September 04 2013 06:13 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On September 04 2013 05:54 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result. TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI. Who brought up Dune? It's a fair point. If it's more exciting when doing something is harder than it used to be, then is it more exciting if we make it WAY harder? If you make something harder then doing it correctly is exciting, yeah. It's not controversial. I didn't claim it was a good change for the game overall, so if people start to insult my intelligence with "how about if you had to solve derivatives while playing blindly standing upside down, would that be more exciting?" I consider them annoying. Dune 2 supposedly requires a lot of mindless clicking, historically people that complained about MBS and AM being introduced to SC2 were made fun of by pretending they would like Dune 2.
By making a particular task harder, then it probably does make performing it more impressive/exciting, yeah. But it doesn't necessarily make the game overall more exciting. fdsdfg brought up the example of removing all keyboard tools; certainly if you manage to macro on 3 bases using only a mouse it's a great deal more impressive than if you do so with mouse and keyboard, but it also makes it so you can't reasonably be expected to exciting things like dropping in three places at once while macroing, so people won't. So the excitement of any particular task is greater, but the excitement of the game overall is probably less.
Of course you didn't say it was better for the game, you said it would make the game more exciting. And he's not insulting your intelligence; he's giving another example that would follow a similar philosophy and asking why that would not be desirable, too. And you can find whatever the hell you want annoying, but that seems like your problem, not his.
He never brought up Dune, but even if he had, when was the last time anybody got banned in the Designated Balance Discussion Thread for bringing up a non-Starcraft RTS? Hardly anybody gets banned in here. I think the last one was GreenGringo, and he had to say dickish things (e.g. virtually all Terran players are stupid) pretty frequently to make that happen.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On September 04 2013 03:28 Rasera wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Warpgate change! Been batting around with this idea for awhile, what's your thought?
Warpgate: Warp in units anywhere a power field exists. Any units built in this way will start with 0 shields and 0 energy, and will be unstealthed for 5 seconds. Researching Warpgate reduces the build time on standard gateways to the same build time as warpgates.
With this change allows an old friend to come back:
Khydarin Amulet is once again researchable at the Templar Archives
The problem with KA before wasn't KA itself. It was KA + WG. Being able to warp-in, storm, die/convert to archons was OP as shit.
But now, in this situation, regardless of KA or not, HT's warp in with 0 energy. This is still okay though, because:
Energy regenerates at 25 energy per 45 seconds. Warped in HT's used to have 50 energy, and WG took 45 seconds to finish cooling down, totalling 75 energy. Guess how much energy a standard gateway HT built over 45 seconds would have if we had KA? That's right 75 energy.
Units are essentially warped in EMP'd. A zealot has 66% of its normal health; everything else has 50% of its normal health. DT's aren't even cloaked at the start. Just how quickly do protoss units melt when they're EMP'd? Oh yeah, f*cking fast.
And now what happens to sentries? Well, you can't really warp them in offensively, since they'll have zero energy, and who would want an expensive unit like that solely for its tickle beam?
The net result is that you have to build your energy units from regular gates, which is fine for sentries, since that's when you tend to make most of them, in the early game. HT's now have to be built from regular gateways or you gotta wait a LONG time for it to do damage. This isn't really much different than the other high tiered protoss units: Robo and Stargate units already have to build up, now HT's would have to as well.
The weakened warp-in units, combined with the 'inability' to spawn more forcefields than you start with allows for a stronger defender's advantage against protoss units. Just think how immortal sentry all-ins would've looked if you only had what you started with. Provided it wasn't Parting, you probably have a considerably better chance against it (but if it was Parting, well then ... f*ck I'm sorry).
Units are warped in as if they were just EMP'd (no shields, no energy, DT's revealed). Researching Warpgate reduces build time on regular Gateways by the same amount as the warpgate reduction.
Wow, I really like this idea!
|
On September 04 2013 06:21 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:13 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On September 04 2013 05:54 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 05:49 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 04 2013 04:58 fdsdfg wrote:On September 04 2013 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
If you're thirsty then water will be the most delicious thing in the world. If smartcasting makes it hard to cast EMP on an entire army it will seem genius whenever a pro terran will do it. It does matter for the spectator, because if you watch often enough you'll see that only a few players can blanket the enemy with the spells. I don't think that removing smartcasting will make ghost micro that much harder though, but theoretically the same ability can seem more brilliant if doing it well is a rare occurrence. Would you say the game would be more exciting if players were only allowed to use the mouse? why are people like you allowed to post again? Your post's entire content was the assertion that making the UI more difficult would change existing spells from 'trivial to land correctly' to 'very exciting to land correctly', or something to that effect. I'm inviting you to give more basis for that by providing an example that would follow the same philosophy, but provide an irrefutably undesirable result. TL bans people for garbage like Dune analogies FYI. Who brought up Dune? It's a fair point. If it's more exciting when doing something is harder than it used to be, then is it more exciting if we make it WAY harder? If you make something harder then doing it correctly is exciting, yeah. It's not controversial. I didn't claim it was a good change for the game overall, so if people start to insult my intelligence with "how about if you had to solve derivatives while playing blindly standing upside down, would that be more exciting?" I consider them annoying. Dune 2 supposedly requires a lot of mindless clicking, historically people that complained about MBS and AM being introduced to SC2 were made fun of by pretending they would like Dune 2. By making a particular task harder, then it probably does make performing it more impressive/exciting, yeah. But it doesn't necessarily make the game overall more exciting. fdsdfg brought up the example of removing all keyboard tools; certainly if you manage to macro on 3 bases using only a mouse it's a great deal more impressive than if you do so with mouse and keyboard, but it also makes it so you can't reasonably be expected to exciting things like dropping in three places at once while macroing, so people won't. So the excitement of any particular task is greater, but the excitement of the game overall is probably less. Of course you didn't say it was better for the game, you said it would make the game more exciting. And he's not insulting your intelligence; he's giving another example that would follow a similar philosophy and asking why that would not be desirable, too. And you can find whatever the hell you want annoying, but that seems like your problem, not his. He never brought up Dune, but even if he had, when was the last time anybody got banned in the Designated Balance Discussion Thread for bringing up a non-Starcraft RTS? Hardly anybody gets banned in here. I think the last one was GreenGringo, and he had to say dickish things (e.g. virtually all Terran players are stupid) pretty frequently to make that happen.
Forget the Dune comment, it's from before your time I guess.
And I didn't say it would make the game more exciting, I said that if hitting EMP is harder then even if the spell looks the same it will still seem more impressive to spectators because it won't happen as frequently (and because the casters will hype it up more).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
