Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 33
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 02 2015 19:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: The neo-development teams great hard-counter philosophy in designing SC2. Thank god that as of LotV they fixed as the Immortal as hardened shield was probably the worst hard-counter design of them all. What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped. On January 02 2015 19:33 Big J wrote: The Collossus is terrible. Extremely terrible. As long as it is around, Protoss can play the deathball turtle. Even if they introduce a thousand other units, playstyles and allins and gambles for the race, there will still be the get rewarded for doing nothing collossus turtle deathball. It's exactly the same as SHs. You don't have to go SH turtle from the start of the game. And most SH games don't ever became stale matches for map attrition and are usually fun. But all gameplay has to evolve around the possibility that people can go full retard boredom with those units. Yes, although thanks to the ravager and siege lurker it should be possible to punish turtles in LOTV (I hope). And honestly I think the problem is more due to the fact that colossus deathballs are the only viable option for a protoss player, and they need to have 3+ colossus to be assured of making a difference. If I could push out with 1-2 colossus much like I could load up a shuttle with 1-2 reavers to complement a dragoon ground army, I would do that. Fuck maybe I just need to go back to BW On January 02 2015 20:41 TheDwf wrote: Your revamped Maëlstrom would essentially act as a glorified Time Warp, which is already a super bad spell to begin with: the effort/effect ratio is completely off (no pain no gain should be a golden rule with the presence of "smart" casting, as it's otherwise far too simple to trigger devastative effects with little user input) + disables are really frustrating for the other side (e. g. Forcefields, Fungals), so they should be treated with extreme care. No thanks. There is no umlaut in maelstrom and the word is "devastating," not devastative lol. I'd respond to your point but I don't see that you have one. This type of spell is extremely common in RTS and MOBA games including Starcraft, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as a game mechanic. Having mobile detection in all "tier2" tech paths would be stupid. There's simply nothing interesting in that. Different tech paths should have different strengths and weaknesses, particularly to balance the game of build orders. Designing complete, "perfect" systems is the surest way to end up with something bland. You want to leave certain gaps for players to work around. Last but not least, lol @ your Dark Archon receiving a midgame Yamato. One-kill button in midgame = no no. The whole twilight tech path is countered by ghosts/EMP and would remain so, which is why it's important that it be an archon-type spellcaster unit that is vulnerable to EMP. It's becoming stunningly obvious you have no idea how this game works, which is crazy because you spend so much time posting here. As for a "one-kill button in midgame" I encourage you to look at the tech tree. Look at the number of steps to get to a fusion reactor, and then look at the dark shrine. You will see that they are the same, except the dark shrine actually has a much longer build time. I don't see anyone mixing battlecruisers into their comps because one-button kills are so game-breaking and OP. With your suggestion, the Colossus would gain the ability to one-shot not only Marines and workers, but also any line composed of units that have less than 120-160 hit points (depending on upgrades, and given that there are often 2+ Colossi in action). That's the vast majority of all ground units ever made in PvT and PvZ—did you think one second about that? Marauders have 125 hp and roaches have 145, so it would take 3 colossus to one-shot 4-5 of them depending on how they line up. Guess how much damage an equivalent supply of siege tanks would deal in splash to the same armored units immediately surrounding the target? 150, with what would be a shorter cooldown. Widow mines, reavers, banelings etc. follow the same pattern. Have you never seen a group of siege tanks or reavers wipe out an entire army before? You may play this game and be good at copying builds, but you clearly have no idea how it actually works. | ||
kakalxlax
49 Posts
On January 02 2015 12:47 kakalxlax wrote: Ideas to make lotv less deathbally. All deathball elements should be removed at once to ensure there won't be an inbalance. Raven: a support unit that promotes deathballs, and furthermore, makes deathballs of itself: -- AutoTurret: buffed stats (hp, damage) but each raven can only place 1 turret, placing a new one destroys the previous one. (Turrets can be placed to support troops or while retiring whiteout being able to flood the map with them, increasing raven support of smaller armies without escalating well in huge numbers) -- PDD: replaced with Nano Matrix: 100 enegy. shields target mechanical for 200 dmg and slightly boosts its attack speed duration while it lasts. (As it's singke targeted, it promotes being used in smaller engagements, if it ends up beeing too good with cyclone, can be changed with the old Defense Matrix) -- Seeker Missile: Option 1: replace with Fallout: 100 energy. Drains shields and energy of units in target area, then leaves the zone contaminated dealing peridic damage to biological units.(this effect wouldn't be stackablr like seeker missile damage) Option 2: Emp missile: functions like sm without initial delay, drains shields and energy in the area surounding the unit it hits and dealing aoe only to biological targets. Option 3: leave it as it is. (Options 1 and 2 would imply ghosts replacing its emp abilty for something else, allowing for a redesign of the unit, specially its cost. The main idea was the raven one, but ill throw this one out. Hellions : line splash is "random", lack of tracking turrets while moving takes away potential from it, and thus, the hellbat was added to make it viable in combat, which could be re proposed into something else if hellions are fixed, and made into a uniy that can be balanced withou the need of the hellbat, being fast and changing how it deals damage would be a start. -- speed increase, even if it requires upgrade. Opt1: replace weapon for a single target one with small aoe. Opt2: and upgrade that allows it to freely swap between 2 kinds of weapons. Opt3: add spidermines. Opt4: a hp increase upgrade. Colossus: Add new unit: Harbinger: every 2 seconds deals 20 damage in a radius of 2-3 around it, even while moving. If there is an energy source nearby (warp prism) can deploy into a "colossus" after 3 seconds, powers down or automatically undeploys if energy source is removed. (could be targeted as ground only to compensate) (What makes colossus such a deathbally unit is its power and range combined with mobily, this would also promote further uses of the prism) Anti-deathball additions: Zerg general: i think making zerf units squishier, cheaper, take less supply and more easily replenishable would make it more swarmy while less deathbally. Reasons: having more units would promote assaults in multiple fronts, as the army would have more units (and not all of them would ve able to attack at once) sending many waves would be more plausible (more having in mind units would replenish faster) - making the units cheaper and squishier is self explanatory. - ways to make them replenish faster. Opt1: make lairs and hives spawn more larvae or do so faster (would justify getting more than 1 lair/hive. Opt2: lategame queen upgrade that enhances injects. Reapers: -- Adding back the G4-Charge to Reapers as an upgrade. (Charge thrown to a point that detonates after 2 seconds) Not only that would make them not useless beyond openings, but create small task forces with an ability that increases micro from the user (to cast) and enemy (to avoid) Sentry: -- Making sentry shields be casted to a point instead of following the sentry. Would make the ability more positional. If needed could have shield and duration tweaked to compensate. | ||
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On January 03 2015 09:52 BaronVonOwn wrote: What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped. Yes, although thanks to the ravager and siege lurker it should be possible to punish turtles in LOTV (I hope). And honestly I think the problem is more due to the fact that colossus deathballs are the only viable option for a protoss player, and they need to have 3+ colossus to be assured of making a difference. If I could push out with 1-2 colossus much like I could load up a shuttle with 1-2 reavers to complement a dragoon ground army, I would do that. Fuck maybe I just need to go back to BW There is no umlaut in maelstrom and the word is "devastating," not devastative lol. I'd respond to your point but I don't see that you have one. This type of spell is extremely common in RTS and MOBA games including Starcraft, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as a game mechanic. The whole twilight tech path is countered by ghosts/EMP and would remain so, which is why it's important that it be an archon-type spellcaster unit that is vulnerable to EMP. It's becoming stunningly obvious you have no idea how this game works, which is crazy because you spend so much time posting here. As for a "one-kill button in midgame" I encourage you to look at the tech tree. Look at the number of steps to get to a fusion reactor, and then look at the dark shrine. You will see that they are the same, except the dark shrine actually has a much longer build time. I don't see anyone mixing battlecruisers into their comps because one-button kills are so game-breaking and OP. Marauders have 125 hp and roaches have 145, so it would take 3 colossus to one-shot 4-5 of them depending on how they line up. Guess how much damage an equivalent supply of siege tanks would deal in splash to the same armored units immediately surrounding the target? 150, with what would be a shorter cooldown. Widow mines, reavers, banelings etc. follow the same pattern. Have you never seen a group of siege tanks or reavers wipe out an entire army before? You may play this game and be good at copying builds, but you clearly have no idea how it actually works. None of what you listed should be considered extremely hard counters. | ||
kakalxlax
49 Posts
Premise: Diferentiate Gateway from Warpgate, decrease dependency in colossus, have a better core army with less deathbally tendencies. Gateway for core army, Warpgate for harass or "task forces". Gateway trains: zealot, immortal, sentry, high templar. Warpgate trains: dark templar, stalker, oracle (oracle requires stargate). Hight Templar upgrade: Khaydarin Amulet upgrade added 150/150, 110 secs. Increase starting energy of high templars by 25. Stalker: dmg10+5vs light, hp60+80. Spd 3.1, range 5. Blink research time decreased to 110secs Immortal: moved to gateway. 150/50, 2 supply, 2.95spd, hp 100+80. Weapon: Can fire while slowing, tracking turret. 6 range, dmg10+10vsArm. Air Attack, range 4, 10+10vsArm. Researchable ability Barrier: puts a 50hp shield around the Immortal for 5 seconds (stands 1 tank shot) Zealot: Charge is toggable: Passively increases zealot speed to 3.1. If charge is used, it reduces zealot's speed back to it's default 2.25 speed while on cooldown. Allows the zealots to travel faster and opens a lot of micro possibilities. Colossus: Made smaller, can't be damaged by air. Weapon dmg10 (x2), range 6. Under a power source (warp prism) can deploy after 3 seconds (made immobile). If the power source is removed, it powers down (can still undeploy but not fire) or automatically undeploys. Deployed weapon: dmg 15 (x2), range 7. Extended thermal lance removed. It's air weakness will remain in form of the warp prism (unless a pylon is used which would be less efficient unless used for base sefense). Would address it's mobility while still making it usable for it's role. ------------- --------Terran: Premise: Reduce deathball factors, increase viability of small task forces over big armies. Reaper: G4-Charge for Reaper as an upgrade. G4-Charge: thrown at range 6, after 2 seconds (with viable timer for both teams) explodes dealing 40+40vsArmored damage (does friendly fire) doesn't damage buildings. Upgrades Building Armor and Neosteel Merged. -- Hellion: Fire while slowing, tracking turret. Single taget weapon, deals more damage the longer it fires at the same target, resets if interrupted. Weapon range 6, speed 0.5, dmg 3+3vsLight after 2 seconds : dmg 5+4vsLight after 4 seconds: dmg 7+4vsLight Locusts: 35hp 6dmg spawn in groups of 4. | ||
SoleSteeler
Canada5291 Posts
Now I want to see the herc/hellbat not overlap and I wanna see the new swarm hosts used well. Or even lurkers... Can anyone recommend a VOD with decent swarm host or lurker usage? | ||
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On January 03 2015 10:56 kakalxlax wrote: Anti-deathball additions: Zerg general: i think making zerf units squishier, cheaper, take less supply and more easily replenishable would make it more swarmy while less deathbally. Reasons: having more units would promote assaults in multiple fronts, as the army would have more units (and not all of them would ve able to attack at once) sending many waves would be more plausible (more having in mind units would replenish faster) I always thought it was weird that Zerg units are generally more beefy than even Terran mech aside from the Thor and BC. I personally think SC2's Zerg would've been more true to it's colors if the Roach was designed with a 1 supply role in mind. On January 03 2015 09:52 BaronVonOwn wrote: What? Counters are so much softer now than they were in BW. If you think that's bad, look at what reavers used to do to m&m and hydralisks. Look at how corsairs and valkyries shredded balls of mutalisks. Psi storm used to do 125 damage over a much larger radius. Stimmed firebats vs. zerglings, etc. etc. They removed that stuff and now we have death balls that can't be stopped. Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW. | ||
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 06 2015 23:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW. I can see how vikings "hard counter" colossus or immortals counter siege tanks to a greater extent than reavers or psi storm counters m&m for example. I just don't see why it's a problem. Starcraft has frequently been called a complicated game of rock/paper/scissors and that's one of the main reasons I play this game. If you don't have to worry about being countered, getting cheesed, etc. then Starcraft is not a strategy game, it's just a brainless battle of raw mechanics and APM. There are better games for that. Or I may as well just go play a piano. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 06 2015 23:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: Units didn't automatically cluster in BW, so these things were less devastating. Psi Storm was balanced around not only that, but also the fact that "smart cast" didn't hold your hand for you and that wielding so much power was actually extremely difficult. SC2 may "feel" less extreme, but it embodies a simplistic hard counter design philosophy that didn't exist in BW. The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game. SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies". If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW". | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
All the stats for larva would have to change and inject larva would have to change as well. I tried to run some numbers, but it's too complex to make sense of it without testing and I don't know if it achieves the intended effect. I can at least tell that you would be extremely larva starved and that inject larva would be a lot more important. In rebalancing, probably larva limit before it stops producing would need to increase and inject would need to be replaced with a different mechanic. Anyway, just a thought. The motivation is to make zerg mechanics more similar to terran/protoss by having high cost units be effectively more larva-expensive compared to now. Maybe it would be unintuitive and confusing though. Concerning messing with larva mechanics: I thought the system was quite complex, I don't understand it myself, but there are some effects you create by having either excess resources or production time that you can burn off with cost effective units that are nevertheless limited. For instance, zerglings have a low mineral cost but extreme larva cost, therefore you can burn off excess larva. If you have high gas count you can create a ton of infestors/mutalisks. Because of reactors you can sometimes convert minerals into marines very easily. Maybe this is what creates some of the swarming effects that terran and zerg have which players tend to find engaging? | ||
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 07 2015 01:19 Big J wrote: The difference between Broodwar and SC2 is in mindset. In Broodwar, when something was a "hardcounter" people just had to put up with it because blizzard would never patch the game. SC2 has the problem of the second-born. BW people expect the game to offer the same strategies as their game had, aka "this is supposed to be BW 2.0". Then there is the young generation of SC2-fans that is spoiled by how much blizzard supported the game with patches. And now demand that anything they would like to have playable to become playable, aka "I want to be able to mass my favorite unit in every matchup". And then there are the guys that are annoyed by patches and expansions and hate whenever one of their previous options becomes weaker or unviable, aka, "blizzard destroying strategies". If people would just put up with immortals hardcountering tanks as they did with reavers hardcountering M&M in BW, we could have actual discussions about improving the game instead of "why isn't this BW"/"why I don't want this to be BW". I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time. On January 07 2015 01:28 Grumbels wrote: Maybe larva shouldn't regenerate when eggs are still morphing (i.e. eggs count as larva for the limit of 3), that way units with higher cost/larva can get higher build time to effectively bring down this ratio, which might be good since for other races cost/production is more or less constant for all units. I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun? | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 08 2015 11:44 BaronVonOwn wrote: I feel like you can't go wrong if you err on the side of making it more like BW. BW didn't start fizzling out 3 years after release and there's a reason for that. Look at CSGO. They made a few small, evolutionary changes rather than massively breaking from the past. They stayed true to the Counter-Strike formula and that is being rewarded big time. BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge. So, before even going into SC2's flaws (which are there) and beyond that into extremely specific solutions (like going more BW) one just needs to take a step back and look at the potential target audience. And that already tells us that Starcraft in what form ever probably just doesn't stand a chance to compete with the top esports titles. That being said, I absolutly do not think going more Broodwar would solve anything. Look at how MobA rose: Warcraft Mod that got more popular than the original game. Look at how CS rose: Half-Life mod that got more popular than the original game. If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead). Here is a small compendium of what makes shooters/MobAs/Tug-o-War/no rush+money map RTS so much more popular than normal Starcraft: - your screen is always on the action, you control your one guy and you slap your opponent with it; you don't get slapped around while you put down a building 10screens away from your army or deselect your army to queue units - information gambles have been annihilated. Yes, you don't see the whole map in DotA/Desert Strike/Nexus Wars, but the gameplay has been built around your opponent automatically showing you his hand asap because is units automatically run to the front and his heroes have to follow to gain XP/gold. - map control is easy, you have spotters everywhere. You don't just lose a game because you lost track of your opponent for 15seconds and then he is appearing in your base and killing your stuff in 10seconds. - patches, patches, patches. When something isn't fun, those games don't keep it in. If Protoss was a Moba Hero it would have been redesigned in 2001. Basically the opposite philosophy of what Broodwar did and what SC2 is following since early 2012 besides the mediocre expension content which doesn't even match a seasonal DotA patch in size. - reasonable team play, you can play with friends. - everything that isn't player on player (or player on AI) action is easy to control, understand and acquire. You don't need 50clicks per minute to keep your standard income coming and your creep waves going in Mobas semi-decently. And all your items are on 1-2 menues, not spread across 10 seperate buildings. Because if you want to play that kind of stuff, there is a whole genre of economic simulation singleplayer-focused games that an interactive multiplayer game will never be able to challenge. There is no use in trying and challenge for the playerbase of Anno 1404, an RTS game just cannot win that fight. Starcraft sadly just doesn't keep up with those standards. It's hard to learn, hard to master, unforgiving if you aren't very good at it and hasn't learned anything from the one-thousand-and-one RTS-like mods that BW/WC3/SC2 have spawned. It still tries to copy Dune2 and BW, games that were fun 15-25years ago but just cannot keep up with todays gameplay standards. And some of the LotV ideas (in particular bases running out faster) seem to go even more backwards. | ||
worosei
Australia198 Posts
also i think the fact is that sc2 IS a sequal to bw, and most people i feel wouldnt have bought SC2 if it didnt have the bw name. like command and conquer or Red Alert series; they have a certain game style that people expect and hence buy the game. i feel its not credible to say 'sc2 is a different game' when they're meant to be of the same species and and technically everything is meant to be more 'advanced' than the first... | ||
Hider
Denmark9246 Posts
| ||
SoleSteeler
Canada5291 Posts
| ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On January 08 2015 12:37 Big J wrote: - everything that isn't player on player (or player on AI) action is easy to control, understand and acquire. You don't need 50clicks per minute to keep your standard income coming and your creep waves going in Mobas semi-decently. And all your items are on 1-2 menues, not spread across 10 seperate buildings. Because if you want to play that kind of stuff, there is a whole genre of economic simulation singleplayer-focused games that an interactive multiplayer game will never be able to challenge. There is no use in trying and challenge for the playerbase of Anno 1404, an RTS game just cannot win that fight. In the defense of Starcraft, I read the "complexity creep" article in this post the other day and I want to quote one section that might be applicable to the discussion here. It talks about a possible solution to the increasing complexity of new Magic cards. (source) Sometimes it helps to lay out a problem when you're trying to solve it. Here's what we knew: We had to bring down the level of barrier to entry. It had simply gotten too high. The game was filled with all sorts of complexity, which was pushing it up. On the flip side, though, we had the established players. Much of what was creating the complexity stemmed from things that were important to keep our existing players. Magic has to keep adding new elements. Expansions have to have new mechanics and new keywords and new themes and new strategies. How could we possibly make all the parties happy? The solution ended up being a tool that trading card games had always had: rarity. How could we get things into the hands of the experienced players without overwhelming the less experienced players? We simply had to keep it out of common. We knew that beginning players buy fewer boosters. This means that the percentage of relevant cards they own that are common is simply much higher. So applying this to Starcraft you get the following concept: you have various simple units such as the marine and marauder that are easily accessible by building a barracks, it's to be expected that most new players will experiment with these simple units first and won't be overwhelmed by the complexity a unit like the ghost offers. The ghost is safely hidden behind the tech requirement of the Ghost Academy, delaying access to the unit until the point that someone actively chooses to pursue this unit. You could argue that this removes some of the complexity creep, but I suppose that the tech tree also becomes subject to complexity creep, so it's double-edged. This is something which bothered me about DotA: the game keeps adding new heroes and items and at some point the choice becomes rather overwhelming. Another problem is that (this is something I noticed in like 2008, so I don't know if it still relevant) many of the new heroes are more experimental, using mechanics that aren't quite obvious. I recall simply not understanding a multitude of abilities because they strayed so far from the simple Warcraft 3 prototypes. In conjunction these two gripes illustrate a clear example of complexity creep: an ever increasing array of heroes that are becoming more and more complex. I imagine that in DOTA2 they identified this as a problem and tried to craft some solutions, but I haven't played that game so I wouldn't know. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On January 08 2015 11:44 BaronVonOwn wrote: I don't see what problem this is solving? How does this make the game more fun? It's an experimental idea to solve the following problem: for terran and protoss build time implies a strain on total production and therefore units have a production cost which increases with build time. A unit with higher cost or higher power can typically take longer to build, making units of different costs more equal with regards to their effect on production. Specifically, there is some ratio of resource cost : production cost which stays within a certain range for all terran and protoss units. For zerg build time does not imply a strain on production because it has no effect on larva generation which is the sole measure of the capability of zerg production. One larva equals one unit, no matter the cost. If terran was similar then a scv and a battlecruiser would both take equally long to build, and in fact this is the case with zerg: an ultralisk requires as much larva as a drone despite the cost difference, allowing you to create an overwhelming number of high tech units very easily. I don't know if this is an actual problem, but it certainly stands in contrast with the other races. I mentioned in my earlier post that the larva system has some effects on swarming styles and such and that it's not necessarily broken despite the difference with terran and protoss. It's still possible to balance units like the ultralisk simply taking into account that you can build them in large numbers. I also don't know if my solution is 1. workable and 2. effective, so like I said it's an experimental idea. To take a closer look at the suggestion, what I had in mind was the following scenario: you have three larva and decide to build a unit. If you build a drone then larva resumes regenerating not immediately (according to the current rules), but after 17 seconds. If you build an ultralisk then larva resumes after 55 seconds. Therefore there is a difference in effective larva costs. Which might be good, or it might be unnecessary. I think there are a wealth of effects of the different production systems, one reason for making this post is that I hope for someone else to theorize about this. One thought I had was that larva encourages many zerg combat units to be at around 100 minerals, as then there is no discrepancy in production costs -- drones, zerglings and ultralisks being specific exceptions as you want drones to be limited by larva to prevent exponential economic growth, you want at least one combat unit (the zergling) that can burn off larva to discourage build-up and the ultralisk can be a simple exception that can be balanced. But of course lurkers and swarm hosts are a bit more expensive and break the pattern. Anyhow, just a thought. | ||
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 08 2015 12:37 Big J wrote: BW didn't have a real esports rival, found very lucky enviromental circumstances in Korea at the time it got popular, didn't take off as a esport in the rest of the world and couldn't keep up with it's successor WC3 at all outside of Korea. Add to that that not a single other bigger game developer is even trying to get a big RTS game on the market, despite the competition being non-existant and the top dog SC2 declining. Then compare that to CSGO: The shooter market has been booming for ages. The target audience is huuuuge. If you want to take Starcraft somewhere, you have to look at what the majority of Starcraft customers play and make a good esports-capable game out of it. For Broodwar that would be something amongst the lines of Big Game Hunters, for SC2 probably something like Desert Strike/Nexus Wars. If RTS/Starcraft wants to be a thing again at some point, the developers need to take a look into these sorts of games and analyze why people prefer those over their bigass triple A titles. The answer is right under their noses and it is definitely not harder game fundamentals (aka more Broodwar, even Broodwar players didn't like them and played BGH instead). I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on. It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3. On January 08 2015 13:04 worosei wrote: goodness i miss a 'proper' game of BGH :p Hahaha, funny you mention that, because I just installed BW and played my first game of BGH in 7+ years and it felt good :D On January 08 2015 20:32 Grumbels wrote: For zerg build time does not imply a strain on production because it has no effect on larva generation which is the sole measure of the capability of zerg production. One larva equals one unit, no matter the cost. If terran was similar then a scv and a battlecruiser would both take equally long to build, and in fact this is the case with zerg: an ultralisk requires as much larva as a drone despite the cost difference, allowing you to create an overwhelming number of high tech units very easily. I think this is just one of the defining traits of Zerg and it balances out. What you should consider is that Zerg also needs to build drones and overlords with that larva, and drones are lost whenever they make new buildings. This adds some overhead to their production. Moreover let's assume that a protoss and a zerg keep their production perfectly queued. The zerg player would end up waiting on larva, and the time it takes for them to spawn would be added to the production time of each of their units. So I think there are already some drawbacks to the zerg production model. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 09 2015 00:53 BaronVonOwn wrote: I agree totally. SC2 made things even harder than Brood War because matchmaking funneled people into 'standard' maps and there was no easy mode option - maps like BGH, Fastest Map, etc. Purists don't like it, but that's what 90% of people play in BW. It was a huge mistake and I think this is one of the main reasons SC2 is dying out. When I say I want SC2 to be more like BW, I am talking about the units. I think the other big problem with SC2 is anti-fun units. Let's face it, in terms of overall fun, lurkers are better than swarm hosts, reavers versus colossus, scourge versus corruptors, arbiters versus a mothership core, and so on. It's true that the shooter market is now bigger than the strategy one, but I think it's just totally wrong to say strategy games can't have mass appeal. Chess is a strategy game, and a national sport in some countries just like BW is/was. Would a really well-done strategy game be the most popular eSport of all? Maybe not, but Starcraft could easily be in the top 3. Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral. I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another. | ||
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 09 2015 01:38 Big J wrote: Well, playing the game on BGH-maps isn't the same as just playing the game in my opinion. If that's the fun part of the game, then the original design should go towards it and the professional scene should also play on those maps. Otherwise we are starting to talk about two different games that just happen to run on the same client. I'm not considered playing Starcraft when I'm playing Desert Strike and neither should be someone who is allowed to 1base with 1million resources, possibly even from stacking 50workers on one mineral. I agree that units could be a lot better, however, your examples just aren't good. The Mothershipcore was never meant to be similar to the Arbiter, you could as well compare it to the Dark Archon and then conclude it is a better design. The Swarm Host and the Lurker share nothing besides having burrow without requiring the burrow upgrade. On top of that there are unit improvements: I like the Marauder replacing the Firebat, it is a much less narrow and microable unit. The hellion is one of the best designed units in Starcrafts legacy, with it's splash form, range and speed fitting perfectly to offer interesting interactions with many units in the game. Banelings are great fun and stalkers an improvement to dragoons (even though blink could have been designed with cliff-abuse in mind to begin with). And the list goes on. Imo there are ups and downs (Colossus, Sentry, Swarm Host) in the comparison with BW unit design and many of the units that are in both games are just bad design to begin with (BC, Devourer/Corruptor, Guardian/Broodlord, Ultralisk, Dark Templar...) and should be considered for redesigning/cutting, one way or another. No, I don't think dictating what maps people will use is the right approach at all. You see, I'm 'Murican, so let me tell you about something called freedom, brother Seriously though, I think this is a situation where it's better to let the market decide. Look what happened with Dreampool, it's not just about money maps. If I were to propose a change, I would make the MM section in SC2 work more like CSGO's MM, where you just check off the maps you want to play and press OK. It could list out available maps much like custom games do now (the difference being, the custom section does not provide MM). As for MSC vs. arbiter yeah you're right, the closer comparison is the full mothership but it's hard for me to speak of that like it's an actual unit when it's so broken and useless. Anyway I do agree that a lot of the SC2 units are better; banelings, ghosts are improved, I do like phoenix, and even stalkers are more "interesting" although I'm not sure whether dragoons have more DPS. As for the hellion, I think this is another case where it was too much of a soft counter and they had to add in the hellbat to make up for its shortcomings. | ||
| ||