Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 22
Forum Index > SC2 General |
oPsTaunt
Brazil1 Post
| ||
Xamo
Spain863 Posts
On February 14 2015 19:14 OtherWorld wrote: Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all. sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2. Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators. | ||
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On February 14 2015 19:46 Xamo wrote: sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2. Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators. Well, y'know... That's kinda what I just said | ||
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On February 14 2015 19:40 404AlphaSquad wrote: But only because they made Thors: expensive high cost unit which you cannot let on its own. (no split up of forces) Hellions: that cannot provide any form of mapcontrol (because of hardcounters you can only hope to achieve killing probes, if you split them up) Hellbats: boring amove unit Siegetank: useless Widowmine: bandaid fix to every mech problem. So the best they came up with in HOTS was combining mech and air upgrades. So every air unit can be assimilated into a normal mech composition. That again was another bandaid fix to me. No, that's not it at all. Mech in BW worked because there were a lot of anti-deathball mechanics in place by design. Take the siege tank, cost 25 gas less and took only 2 supply in BW while also doing 70 front line damage instead of 50. So why were they balanced? BW tanks had overkill. That means that if you dropped a zealot in range of like 20 siege tanks, all would fire, wasting shots. Thus you were encouraged to spread your tanks out, not only to protect them from being bum rushed, but to also prevent them from wasting shots. Spreading them out had the added benefit of reducing DPS density, so that a mechball could never just overwhelm an army. The efficiency of pathing and of targeting and killing of SC2 tanks, and of aoe units in general, is what makes SC2 deathballs so powerful. The examples you have have 0 to do with what made BW mech good. On February 14 2015 19:46 Xamo wrote: sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2. Making mech viable TvP, or marine-tank-banshee TvP, or non-deathball protoss, or non-ling-bane-muta ZvT, or whatever composition / playstile, is not the goal by itself. The goal is to enable more strategies / playstyles that enrich the game as a whole, both for players and for spectators. No one says SC2, needs to be 100% like Brood War. What they are saying is that Blizzard could at least fucking try to take the best elements of BW and incorporate them into SC2 to make it a better game. I have no idea why most people have to be more dense then granite when it comes to this. The correct way to do iterative design is build upon existing successful elements, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, which is what Blizzard seems to desperately adamant about doing. | ||
Audio
United States60 Posts
/terran - Make the widow mine more consistent instead of a lottery. Reduce it's effectiveness so siege tanks, ravens, ghosts and all the other terran support units can see more use. -Hellbat, the other HotS addition, still feels very strong. A-Move splash damage, that costs only minerals : ( -Bio has been incredibly strong since WoL. 3-3 bio is nuts. nerf rines and buff tanks to compensate. Rines need more surface area or different pathing. The problem with bio is it gets exponentially stronger the bigger your bio ball gets, so bio doesn't need support. It's counter intuitive to the terran design. The Attack speed changes seem very exciting to me, but not the solution I was hoping for. Possibly reduce range and increase attack speed of bio, or just increase rine size. To increase their effectiveness in small groups and reduce it in large ones. -Medivacs are the beginning and end of useful Terran support units. Boost was a little much, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread. Make it easier to respond to threats. As zerg or protoss often it feels like you're on the receiving end of terran harassment for the whole game. -limit scv repairs. /protoss -gateway units are fine, bio is not. -Just scrap the colossus, you're already nerfing it out of play. Also reaver > disruptor. -Make the carrier useful. -Tempest could be possible stargate AoE solution. I understand people don't like AoE in SC2, but at this point it's a nescesarry evil, and air compositions with templar just don't work. Flying reaver is my thought for the tempest, reduce range and price accordingly. /zerg -you're already fixing swarmhosts! Looks great imo. -infestors and swarmhosts are clunky. Fix the pathing or reduce model size. Seems like swarmhosts and infestors just get caught in the wave of zerg and have a mind of their own. it's really annoying when you burrow a group of swarmhosts and one of them doesn't have room to burrow so he sacrifices himself in a locust wave. Despite you telling him to burrow. -Move air upgrades to evo. If you choose to upgrade both armor and attack on air it's very expensive, making it require two spire is not a viable option. -Reduce time it takes to morph banelings -Zerg too reliant on mutalisks for defense, hydralisks are poor at stopping terran drops because of marines cost effectiveness vs hydra, and hydralisks have poor movespeed even on creep. Hydralisks should have a movespeed increase on creep, as it is now they don't move any faster on creep then they do off creep with the speed upgrade. Hydralisks would be fine if medivacs didn't have boost -_- -revert/reduce mutalisk hots buff -Roach could be rebalanced if bio rebalancing is effective, to reduce their effectiveness vs protoss. -remove range upgrade on hydralisks | ||
404AlphaSquad
838 Posts
On February 14 2015 20:10 Destructicon wrote: No, that's not it at all. Mech in BW worked because there were a lot of anti-deathball mechanics in place by design. Take the siege tank, cost 25 gas less and took only 2 supply in BW while also doing 70 front line damage instead of 50. So why were they balanced? BW tanks had overkill. That means that if you dropped a zealot in range of like 20 siege tanks, all would fire, wasting shots. Thus you were encouraged to spread your tanks out, not only to protect them from being bum rushed, but to also prevent them from wasting shots. Spreading them out had the added benefit of reducing DPS density, so that a mechball could never just overwhelm an army. The efficiency of pathing and of targeting and killing of SC2 tanks, and of aoe units in general, is what makes SC2 deathballs so powerful. The examples you have have 0 to do with what made BW mech good. You make it sound as if Thors/hellbats and terrible siegetanks do not contribute to the problem in sc2. Overkill on tanks is such a small part in a bigger scheme why sc2 mech is uninteresting. Seriously. there are many elements that factor in why mech is how it is in sc2: 1) no overkill (as you mentioned) 2) hard counter damage system. 3) cost of units: 10 vultures for the cost of 750 minerals that can lay down 30 spidermines and are faster than anything else in the game. Role: harrass, map activity and map control + a straight fighting unit. tanks did hit harder and cost less. 4) supply cost of units. I am sorry but how are you supposed to split up if you play with 6 supply thors that are horrible if they have to fight alone. 3 supply for a siege tank. In BW you could have 50 siegetanks that hit way harder for 100 supply. In sc2 you are basically maxed if you build 50 siegetank and you are way weaker than in BW. = Lesser and weaker units that cannot fight on their own. 5) Highground advantage: Do me a favor, start BW again and build 12 dragoons and try to move them up a walled of terran choke with 1-2 siegetanks behind it. If you are a pro you might be able to break it barely. If you are a newb you cannot do it. That brings me to my next point: 6) lock down part of the map: Saying this part belongs to me now! with spidermines and 2-3 siegetanks you can make it incredibly difficult for a protoss player to engage into that. In sc2 you would have to invest 9 supply instead of 6 just for the siege tanks. AND they still do WORSE than sc1 siege tanks. 7) MANY MORE REASONS, but I got lazy writing. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On February 14 2015 20:41 404AlphaSquad wrote: You make it sound as if Thors/hellbats and terrible siegetanks do not contribute to the problem in sc2. Overkill on tanks is such a small part in a bigger scheme why sc2 mech is uninteresting. Seriously. there are many elements that factor in why mech is how it is in sc2: 1) no overkill (as you mentioned) 2) hard counter damage system. 3) cost of units: 10 vultures for the cost of 750 minerals that can lay down 30 spidermines and are faster than anything else in the game. Role: harrass, map activity and map control + a straight fighting unit. tanks did hit harder and cost less. 4) supply cost of units. I am sorry but how are you supposed to split up if you play with 6 supply thors that are horrible if they have to fight alone. 3 supply for a siege tank. In BW you could have 50 siegetanks that hit way harder for 100 supply. In sc2 you are basically maxed if you build 50 siegetank and you are way weaker than in BW. = Lesser and weaker units that cannot fight on their own. 5) Highground advantage: Do me a favor, start BW again and build 12 dragoons and try to move them up a walled of terran choke with 1-2 siegetanks behind it. If you are a pro you might be able to break it barely. If you are a newb you cannot do it. That brings me to my next point: 6) lock down part of the map: Saying this part belongs to me now! with spidermines and 2-3 siegetanks you can make it incredibly difficult for a protoss player to engage into that. In sc2 you would have to invest 9 supply instead of 6 just for the siege tanks. AND they still do WORSE than sc1 siege tanks. 7) MANY MORE REASONS, but I got lazy writing. No, you don't get it. AoE units like siege tanks need to be so weak because of how OP they are together. The reason they are so strong together is because of how efficient they are at killing with no overkill. Overkill basically changes everything. BW tanks had tons of counter-play to them, you could zealot bomb them by droping zealots on top of a cluster and all tanks would fire and destroy each other, you could bait shots with small groups of units and then bump rush with the primary force, you could drag mines into them. Like seriously, overkill just changes the entire dynamics of aoe units. If you just tweek cost and supply of units you just make SC2 mech into an unstoppable and disgusting deathball, several orders of magnitude worst then Protoss or maybe BL/Infestor. Look at it this way. When Blizz designed SC2 smarter UI, they realized macro would be a lot easier because they are making it so efficient. To compensate they create macro mechanics, that was a good bit of design decision on their part. Well they unfortunately didn't have the same foresight when it came to aoe units. Instead of implementing more mechanics to keep aoe units in check, to keep them from scaling exponentially, they just nerfed numbers. Ultimately Blizzard failed to address the real problem aoe units still scale exponentially, it just takes a bit more of them, but they are still stupid when stacked. You can't even begin to contemplate the rest of mech or other unit interaction until you give aoe units a good hard look. | ||
Pandahunterz
Netherlands213 Posts
| ||
sdnnvs
Brazil33 Posts
| ||
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + We at Blizzard-SC2-DEV-Team found an ancient Data-Storage-Device. It was shaped like a disc with an odd hole in the middle surrounded by a concentric transparent plastic. It's underside revealed nothing but our own curious faces, while on the upperside, written in an old font, everybody thought was lost it spelled "Warcraft III". While this looked rather sophisticated and printed someone had added a strange code with silver paint and handwriting. We asked our self, what this thing could be, what a Warcraft is and if this is III, where is I and II and will there be more? We set the device on top of our oldest Computers, Mac and tablets (early 2014), but they failed to connect either by NFC,BT,WLAN.... Asking Scruffy, our old trustworthy janitor what else to do with the thing, he went through his cabinet and he gave us something from the past...as he called it , an external CD-ROM-Drive. Scruffy sensed our contempt on the discovery that the drive did not come with Thunderbolt, but only USB and he left. What happend as we plugged in the Drive´s rusty cable into one of our PCs and fed the disc into its hungry savage mouth was wonderful. And was not expected. A green, strangly animated Warriors Face greeted us from our 65" 4K monitor. He dared us to install what happens to be a... a game..Warcraft III...and he even asked for the code we found early to be granted access into his realm. After only a few minutes of terrifying noises from the CD-ROM drive it was over. We waited for the installment to connect to the internet, to share data in order "increase the quality of the product", to validate the data to it's copyright-holder....but nothing happend. How can a game not require an account ? Where does this kind of recklessness end? We clicked Play ! And We liked it! Oh yeah!.... ........And then we wanted to add shadows and slower gameplay to LOTV LOL Terran changes: Blizzard is trolling: HERC sucked anyway, i hope the HERC-Tank thing will go down with it.Terran was perfect in 2010, and does neither require or want new units. Protoss: Well great, why don't add more gatewayunits, since warpgate is the acutal nemesis of map-design? Zerg: F*ck zerg I dont care, roach all day. | ||
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On February 14 2015 18:49 ZenithM wrote: I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away. As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then. What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal. One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels. | ||
kofmann
Moldova1 Post
Also, imo, the worker harrassing would become much more powerful and used ( especially if the worker HP does not get increased) , a goal that Blizzard, is looking to accomplish, especially in LotV. Thus the games could become more low eco and the psi limit (very rapidly achieved now, which is another major problem) would be very hard to achieve, hence more micro and less deathballs. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote: why does blizzard need to make mech work? 1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides. | ||
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On February 14 2015 23:02 TheDwf wrote: 1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides. Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest? | ||
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On February 14 2015 23:06 RaFox17 wrote: Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest? I'm no pro but what i found is that due to the strong hard counter nature of P units, you have to play very passive with mech. You can't go out with a few tanks and hellions to take position/attack. The solution i think is to weaken the hard counter nature of some units, and this is exactly what Blizz is doing. Having a fast raider that can threaten more then just light units and thus putting pressure, is also important, and again, this is what Blizz is doing. | ||
royalroadweed
United States8298 Posts
On February 14 2015 23:14 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm no pro but what i found is that due to the strong hard counter nature of P units, you have to play very passive with mech. You can't go out with a few tanks and hellions to take position/attack. The solution i think is to weaken the hard counter nature of some units, and this is exactly what Blizz is doing. Having a fast raider that can threaten more then just light units and thus putting pressure, is also important, and again, this is what Blizz is doing. I agree with the need for a vulture-like unit. Even if you change the super hard counters to mech its still going to be turtly, albeit less so, because its still so hard to attack with mech. Never played bw multiplayer, however i did play starbow and you can put on so much pressure with a few vultures and 2 siege tanks. Doing damage with sc2 mech with 10-15 supply of units, including siege tanks, is unthinkable. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 14 2015 23:02 TheDwf wrote: 1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides. 1. For these sorts of statments to be verified you actually need to ask the game designers about their design intentions. And blizzard has said they intented to make stargate-based play more viable and autonomous in the past, so the comparison is very valid from my point of view. (of course the actual gameplay is different, while Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions, Factory based play is even more autonomous throughout most of the game, though still quite dependend on Starport play by design decisions of HotS at least) 2. I believe that is somewhat of the bane of the Mech/Bio diversity. For both of them to be viable, the reactions - and in particular the immidiate reactions and game decisions - cannot differ too much. Otherwise you only get "the one or the other game". Optimally we'd want two races to have various strategies A,B and 1,2 and Avs1 is as valid as Avs2, same for Bvs1 and Bvs2 (with strategical adjustments of course). 3. I don't see why the only way to play against Mech should be the ways of bio Terran for Protoss and Zerg. Terran can also choose to play Mech vs Mech. This goes basically to my response to 2. The game should allow me to make some deeper stylistic choices regardless of my opponent's stylistic choices. | ||
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On February 14 2015 21:36 Sapphire.lux wrote: What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal. One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels. I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle". I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer. Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it. | ||
MrFreeman
207 Posts
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general. Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. | ||
| ||