|
On September 03 2024 16:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 23:25 Balnazza wrote:On September 02 2024 22:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 02 2024 20:44 Balnazza wrote:
How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"? Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems. So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas. You are correct and if that is what is happening, I'm not minding it. But the jumps are so crazy to me. It starts with "Should we enter Dragoons?" to which the answer is a clear "no", then suddenly there is the input of Ultralisks needing changes, before we kind of return to Dragoons and start talking about Stalker-Changes. in between there was also a bit of time for some good ol' "lets reverse Terran back to SC1 and kick out most of the SC2 units". And now we have come to mapchanges and fundamental dynamic changes of how the economy works, together with the idea of "more units should walk over cliffs". And all of that would be fine if it was a natural discussion, if one thing would lead to another. But all of the ideas I mentioned above are introduced by the OP himself. They are not connected in any way. Workers being able to walk over cliffs has nothing to do with "Does Protoss need Dragoons?". The only connection is 'It would be cool, if...".
I know I'm probably overpedantic here, I really get that. But at this point, maybe these and other threads should just firm under the name "Visioncraft" because he clearly does not want to talk about SC2. Or, y'know, he should get a Twitter or something... I’m down with a bit of theory crafting, hell I’m a proud member of the anti-warpgate crowd for over a decade. But I think Vision has said he doesn’t really watch, or actively play SC2, least the competitive side. I just don’t see the point when, at present there are multiple threads here for in-development RTS games where a lot of discourse is people discussing what they’d like to see, ideas from the iterative to the radical. It seems a much better outlet for their vision, pun intended Pick basically any ABBA album and it’s fantastic, hook-laden mainstream pop music. But I also love me some Miles Davis, especially Kind of Blue which is something of a high water mark for that form of jazz. It would be kinda rightly seen as bizarre if I was on Reddit pages for either artist going why don’t they do more of what the other artist does?
I think you might have pinpointed why it annoys me so much. It really is a pet-peeve of mine when people have a fundamental dislike of something, but instead of just accepting that it isn't for them, they have the impulse to change it so it fits their taste better - even if the core-community of the game hates it.
As you said yourself: If you like Hiphop, look for a Hiphop-singer. Don't go to a rock band say "sing HipHop or you are boring"
It's like...I like SC2. Really, really like it, one of my favorite games of all time. But I love Warcraft 3. Still the best game I have ever played. And yet, at no point in time, did I seriously think "you know what SC2 needs? Heroes! And creeps around the map. That would be so awesome!"
...hey, it might be awesome - for me. But I'm sure the majority of the Starcraft-Community would hate the thought of their beloved game moving away from an army and economy focused game towards a game build around heroes.
|
On September 03 2024 04:51 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 03:43 Vision_ wrote:On September 03 2024 03:35 Balnazza wrote:On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote:
meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying 1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180° ...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death. Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers. It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000 If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game.
I haven t to lose my time in arguing against it... and tbh This is such an exaggerated affirmation that it cannot be true.
|
On September 04 2024 04:14 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 04:51 Balnazza wrote:On September 03 2024 03:43 Vision_ wrote:On September 03 2024 03:35 Balnazza wrote:On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote:
meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying 1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180° ...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death. Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers. It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000 If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game. I haven t to lose my time in arguing against it... and tbh This is such an exaggerated statement that it cannot be true.
Then I will show you the respect that you lack and present you with the argument for it:
The entire game of SC2 LotV is basically build and balanced around the idea of "get 3 bases and fight for your 4th". This statement varies a bit between the races and you can of course skip it with some sort of timing attack or allin, but it generally is true.
Now, you can tweak the premise with the map, especially with rich minerals and geysires. Some maps make the goal harder for certain races than others.
But when you casually stroll in and go "mhm, lets just have fewer bases lol" you disturb this entire core. If you go even further and decide fewer workers should be needed or the harassment of workers should be harder/easier because of other dynamics, you change the core. The only thing Blizzard did was increase the number of starting workers and that alone already sped up the game considerably and changed the first ~5 minutes of the game drastically...but of course, because Blizzard spend a lot of time on that idea, it was somewhat managed and probably a good change. But villy-nilly working on these changes because they are cool (which again, is your only argument) is just stupid.
I can give you an example how one small, "cool" change can alter the entire dynamic of a game:
In Warcraft 3, we had a map called 'Sea and Sand'. It was a fairly unnoteworthy map, but it had one crucial difference compared to any other 1v1: It had a Dragon Lair on the map. A Dragon Lair that offered a Level 10 Bronze Dragon as a mercenary.
And suddenly, the entire dynamic of the game was changed. I think the Dragon had a starting cooldown of 12 minutes or something like that, but essentially the entire game boiled down to "who is at 12 minutes near the Dragon Lair and has the ressources to buy the Dragon?"
Don't get me wrong, I personally loved the map, but it was ridicolous how many matches were immediately swung around because one party was able to buy the Dragon. Players hated the map, they vetoed it all the time and eventually we kicked it out of the pool after just one season.
I still think the idea is cool, but it was just poorly implemented without much care. And that is a huge problem.
|
Did you feel an ENTIRE change when the number of workers change from 6 to 12 ?
Of course not, a lot of builds order have been cancelled but the core of the game still remains the same.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On September 04 2024 05:23 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 04:14 Vision_ wrote:On September 03 2024 04:51 Balnazza wrote:On September 03 2024 03:43 Vision_ wrote:On September 03 2024 03:35 Balnazza wrote:On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote:
meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying 1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180° ...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death. Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers. It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000 If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game. I haven t to lose my time in arguing against it... and tbh This is such an exaggerated statement that it cannot be true. Then I will show you the respect that you lack and present you with the argument for it: The entire game of SC2 LotV is basically build and balanced around the idea of "get 3 bases and fight for your 4th". This statement varies a bit between the races and you can of course skip it with some sort of timing attack or allin, but it generally is true. Now, you can tweak the premise with the map, especially with rich minerals and geysires. Some maps make the goal harder for certain races than others. But when you casually stroll in and go "mhm, lets just have fewer bases lol" you disturb this entire core. If you go even further and decide fewer workers should be needed or the harassment of workers should be harder/easier because of other dynamics, you change the core. The only thing Blizzard did was increase the number of starting workers and that alone already sped up the game considerably and changed the first ~5 minutes of the game drastically...but of course, because Blizzard spend a lot of time on that idea, it was somewhat managed and probably a good change. But villy-nilly working on these changes because they are cool (which again, is your only argument) is just stupid. I can give you an example how one small, "cool" change can alter the entire dynamic of a game: In Warcraft 3, we had a map called 'Sea and Sand'. It was a fairly unnoteworthy map, but it had one crucial difference compared to any other 1v1: It had a Dragon Lair on the map. A Dragon Lair that offered a Level 10 Bronze Dragon as a mercenary. And suddenly, the entire dynamic of the game was changed. I think the Dragon had a starting cooldown of 12 minutes or something like that, but essentially the entire game boiled down to "who is at 12 minutes near the Dragon Lair and has the ressources to buy the Dragon?" Don't get me wrong, I personally loved the map, but it was ridicolous how many matches were immediately swung around because one party was able to buy the Dragon. Players hated the map, they vetoed it all the time and eventually we kicked it out of the pool after just one season. I still think the idea is cool, but it was just poorly implemented without much care. And that is a huge problem.
Speaking of WC3, I don’t think Blizz get enough credit for putting out an expansion that maybe massively improved the core game more than any I can think of
Where in RoC you could avoid each other and power creep your hero, capping the levels you could generate via that method was capped to level 5
Units like hunts had armour type changes and really changed how the game was played too
Also iirc stuff like your solo hero getting bonus exp based on your tech tier was a TFT change and made that kind of strat more viable too.
I guess because both BW and TFT have been out way, way longer now than the gap between them and the base games we kinda almost think of them as the base game, but they really did a great job in fixing issues and adding new possibilities
|
BW and TFT are both so damn amazing, I dno if it's just Rob Pardo that is a genius or what, but it's wild. HotS was big, but the changes weren't much what was needed, rather they started spinning in a direction which was first fulfilled imo with LotV. WoL have many things that I miss, but Lotv is better than hots, imo.
|
On September 05 2024 02:33 ejozl wrote:
BW and TFT are both so damn amazing, I dno if it's just Rob Pardo that is a genius or what, but it's wild. HotS was big, but the changes weren't much what was needed, rather they started spinning in a direction which was first fulfilled imo with LotV. WoL have many things that I miss, but Lotv is better than hots, imo.
First, it was a lot of small, rushy maps with nasty Terran timings. Then Zerg got Queen range +2, and could defend anything early with only minerals. Terrans got pushed out of the top of e-sports, while Protoss could go toe-to-toe with Zerg with well executed 2-base immortal timings, and dominated the top of the first WCS because of them. If Zerg reached BL/Infestor with 3-3 infested Terrans, it was over, but there were hopes of stupid archon toilet plays. PvP was about warp gate timing rushes or pin-pointing a forge timings in deathball clashes. Look back at some games, and get disappointed. I doubt you can even suffer through the first minutes of pure construction.
WoL was not one thing, but several bad ones, from questionable to outright horrible. We tend to sugarcoat the past.
 2012 Battle.net World Championship
|
On September 05 2024 03:32 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2024 02:33 ejozl wrote:
BW and TFT are both so damn amazing, I dno if it's just Rob Pardo that is a genius or what, but it's wild. HotS was big, but the changes weren't much what was needed, rather they started spinning in a direction which was first fulfilled imo with LotV. WoL have many things that I miss, but Lotv is better than hots, imo. First, it was a lot of small, rushy maps with nasty Terran timings. Then Zerg got Queen range +2, and could defend anything early with only minerals. Terrans got pushed out of the top of e-sports, while Protoss could go toe-to-toe with Zerg with well executed 2-base immortal timings, and dominated the top of the first WCS because of them. If Zerg reached BL/Infestor with 3-3 infested Terrans, it was over, but there were hopes of stupid archon toilet plays. PvP was about warp gate timing rushes or pin-pointing a forge timings in deathball clashes. Look back at some games, and get disappointed. I doubt you can even suffer through the first minutes of pure construction. WoL was not one thing, but several bad ones, from questionable to outright horrible. We tend to sugarcoat the past. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/2012_Battle.net_World_Championship
Yea I don't think people really appreciate just how much the game has evolved in a good way from Wings of Liberty. There's a reason that the popularity of the game absolutely cratered in 2012 and it doesn't all have to do with the rise of mobas.
It's because the game's meta turned into an absolutely abysmal stale state of Infestor/Broodlord dominating everything. Blizzard never had any reason to adjust it because Heart of the Swarm was coming out, so if you could go back and try and play it, you'd be right back into that exact same meta.
The economy changes we have now as well as numerous balance adjustments to individual units, have removed that deathball centric playstyle from every race except Protoss who still relies on it thanks to their faction being designed around Warp Gate and deathballs.
We didn't move in that direction on accident. We did it because the game got incredibly stale and unfun when we were locked into those metas that were defined by specific late game deathball comps that were otherwise unbeatable.
|
On September 04 2024 17:21 Vision_ wrote:
Did you feel an ENTIRE change when the number of workers change from 6 to 12 ?
Of course not, a lot of builds order have been cancelled but the core of the game still remains the same.
The game changed a lot through that "simple" change, but more importantly, the entire rest of the game was build around it. The new units were designed to work with the faster start (allowing for mid- to lategame units to be added that oherwise might come in too late), maps got adjusted, very early all-ins got nerfed.
It wasn't just "lul, lets increase the amount of starting worker, that's fun."
|
I love a lot about early WoL, how everything was new, the hype, tons of unpolished and different buildorders, the different characters and players, the east vs west clash...
The games however were vastly worse than LotV. 3/4 of them were cheesefests and that was on a good day, people were much worse at defending cheeses and the much shorter maps made cheeses much easier to execute. It was quite often minerals being mined bunker rush one side looses. PvP was almost exclusively 4-gate rush until LotV, TvT were hour long siege tank lines shooting at each other and TvP was terran all-in after terran all-in only sometimes disrupted by P cheeses like 4-gate or dt-rush.
|
I can't agree, there were more cheese than now, but just because 4gate was the standard doesn't make it cheese. How much is it the player base maturing vs. the gameplay changes making lotv what it is now?, cuz I don't think wol would be played the same at all, if it suddenly became the primary installment.
The maps factor in a lot too.
|
4gate was 100% a cheesy all-in. You cut worker production, don't invest into any tech, and don't expand so you can invest more into T1 unit production that you'll never be able to transition out of without doing massive damage and to successfully execute it you need to catch your opponent with their pants down so you can walk up their ramp, grant yourself high ground vision, and do a warp-in in their main from a low ground pylon or maybe even a high-ground pylon if you were sneaky enough to get away with building one in their main when you probe scouted
|
They removed this high ground warp in. I was thinking of a map like taldarim altar, where there is no high ground, so the standard becomes 4gate vs. 4gate, if it's the only build, or the standard build, you cannot call it cheese.
|
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On September 07 2024 05:38 ejozl wrote:
They removed this high ground warp in. I was thinking of a map like taldarim altar, where there is no high ground, so the standard becomes 4gate vs. 4gate, if it's the only build, or the standard build, you cannot call it cheese.
I mean it’s not cheese IMO but it’s not good either
And in WoL, relative to the competition I had a tighter 4 gate than most. Indeed it was probably my strongest period ever in PvP, as I usually hit 1-2 seconds quicker than everyone else at my level.
I had my 4 gate pretty close to the best pros in terms of timing in those days, was easy to grind it out vAI
Still, wasn’t exactly fun
|
In the past with the 12 workers model, the number of maximum workers seems to get a balance around 80 for the biggest map (without forget mules), so yes i can admit that a ton of balance have been done since 2014 (already 10 years !). I guess It would be idiot to slow down the start of the income until the mid game stage.
From a personal tought if the start of the game is good, then i see an interest in slightly slowing down economy between 6 and 7 minutes (which represent the benefit of income due to the natural expansion, and the 4-gates timing push). Then the idea would be to make those isolated violet rich mineral (note : a maximum of 9 workers are able to pass over cliffs) a little bit less productive than those benefits from a natural expansion in the current economy of SC2.
This trough of the economy wave will be followed by a better income of the natural base; which means that the income graph curve will increase after the "bonus part of violet mineral". PS: The idea is also for creating a reward/risk in harvesting minerals.
DETAIL OF THE MODEL
Then my goal is to extend this first part of the main base in collecting ressource, problem can easily solved with maths. Which means that 8 workers + Show Spoiler +correction in the next paragraph
- keep the same income at start
- pressure for control ground of the battlefield
In increasing the overall income from the first base up to as effective as 24 workers + Show Spoiler +After redo the maths, it s more about "7 workers start" with a income x 1.5
The other idea is to slow the duration time build of a SCV and increase his income (in order to keep the 12 workers start) but i m less confident in this idea.
The reduction of base number could be a nerf for Zerg so i keep in my mind a modification that will increase the production of larva.
Conclusion : base are now as effective as 24 workers, then You are controlling approximately a maximum of two bases (working simultaneously). So there would be 2 x 24 = 48 workers PLUS 9 workers for violet minerals, we can consider that those BIG workers are harvesting violet minerals two time faster than old workers.
7 workers start
Buff for harvesting workers : x 1.5 (redo maths : x 1.4)
BIG workers as effective as x 2 old worker
|
Here is the thing:
In most RTS, SC2 included, economy is the driving factor to leave your base. In fact, in SC2 it is extreme, since there are barely any other reasons to be active on the map except for increasing your economy and disturbing the opponents. The only other reason would be to secure certain map-positions (e.g. tank positioning). With that, SC2 is technically less dynamic than lets say WC3, where the creepspots and items on the map motivate you to leave your base, since these are ressources that are otherwise lost to your opponent (and rater quickly, too).
So why does SC2 feel so much more dynamic than WC3? Because of much quicker, more numerous armies - and the fact that you have to spread out on the map fast.
If you reduce the numbers of bases a player has to work with, you reduce the reasons to leave your base. I know, the idea is then to have these ominous cliff-walking workers, but how exactly would that work? Do you have your base on top (or below, whatever) the cliff and your workers just walk that little extra-step? Or do you not have a base at all and your workers just walk over half the map to get the ressources?
Depending on that you open up a lot more questions (some even asked in this thread): Do you really enjoy the thought of babysitter workers that run all over the map? Wouldn't you need even more army standing by to do that, reducing your actual fighting force? Wouldn't these cliff-walkers nerf Protoss, considering that Protoss has the smallest armies and has the biggest need for static defense? If I understand you correctly, the numbers of workers would be reduced while the eco stays the same, so wouldn't that make Zerg stronger? Btw Zerg, how does this model balance out the fact that Zerg generally needs to be a base ahead?
And while I know that it is a personal thing: I'm not a fan of exceptions. In SC2, both ressources work the same, you can put infinite workers on them. Sure, in a normal setting that is useless, but you *can* do it. So suddenly limiting your "cliff-walkers" to 9 is a block that feels unnatural.
There are just so much questionmarks around this idea, while it doesn't even really do anything. If your only goal is to force players to be "more active on the map", then just create bigger, emptier maps. Increase the distance between the starting 3 bases and the 4th considerably and you get players out more - not that I think that that is a generally good idea though.
|
It s hard to answer fast to all the questions directly in english as i have a english school langage.
It could be impossible to take account some points of your questions like the dynamic of the bases especially because of the lack of support and test by now (actually working on the project, called project Leviathan, only maps are really modified in the first part until something balanced appear, maps will be called Lev_shakuras, Lev_metalopolis etc... i can only figure out to implement hydralisk T1 with one supply cost and look at the potoss defense as you suggest)
If you point some real problems, i agree on the fact that one of the biggest problem is the "third base ahead" of zerg,
I recently check all units armor in broodwar, there s not so many units with the "medium unit" tag (neither concussive or explosive damage), it appears that hydralisks are one of those few medium units. In fact it COULD be a no tag armor in SC2 (as there s only few no tag armor unit and for BW only few medium unit), i consider this idea as the first step to do in term of balance.
+ Show Spoiler +
Units with bonus against light
Protoss
Phoenix
Oracle
Colossus
Adept
Terran
Ghost
Hellion / Hellbat
Thor (vs. air, Explosive Payload only)
Liberator (vs. air)
Zerg
Baneling
|
But you can see how this one change alone starts to ramp up the need for more and more changes. And here I'm back to my original point: None of these changes feel connected. They are just puzzle-pieces without any synergy. Because in the end, you haven't really answered what your Mod (at this point it should be clear that nothing of this will ever be implemented, so it will be a Mod in the end) is supposed to accomplish.
- Balance can't be it. SC2 is balanced (as good as balance in an assymetric Three-Race-RTS can be), so I highly doubt one guy randomly changing stats and gameplay mechanics will end up with a version of the game that is more balanced.
- "The game should feel different"? Then play a different game or program a new one. Both are much more viable than trying to change something that works.
- "It should feel more like SC1"? Then play SC:R
- Or is it about players should be forced to be more active on the map? Then again, just do bigger maps with less ressources. Though honestly, if we ignore very lategame stages of the game, I personally think SC2 is already plenty active on the map, probably way too much for newer players.
Change for the sake of change is the worst thing you can do for a game. If your changes don't have reason and are cohesive, they are in the end useless at best and harmful at worst.
|
On September 07 2024 23:33 Balnazza wrote:
But you can see how this one change alone starts to ramp up the need for more and more changes. And here I'm back to my original point: None of these changes feel connected. They are just puzzle-pieces without any synergy. Because in the end, you haven't really answered what your Mod (at this point it should be clear that nothing of this will ever be implemented, so it will be a Mod in the end) is supposed to accomplish.
- Balance can't be it. SC2 is balanced (as good as balance in an assymetric Three-Race-RTS can be), so I highly doubt one guy randomly changing stats and gameplay mechanics will end up with a version of the game that is more balanced.
- "The game should feel different"? Then play a different game or program a new one. Both are much more viable than trying to change something that works.
- "It should feel more like SC1"? Then play SC:R
- Or is it about players should be forced to be more active on the map? Then again, just do bigger maps with less ressources. Though honestly, if we ignore very lategame stages of the game, I personally think SC2 is already plenty active on the map, probably way too much for newer players.
Change for the sake of change is the worst thing you can do for a game. If your changes don't have reason and are cohesive, they are in the end useless at best and harmful at worst.
Good post
The worst offenders are usually the ones that keep saying “
“Mech was viable in sc1, therefore it must be viable in sc2”.
Or
“ make sc2 more like Sc1”
Moral of the story, don’t like sc2? Go watch or play another game cause those guys are definitely in the minority.
I know BW is still popular, but I literally can’t watch any match from beginning to end due to how slow and feel like it lack of skills compare to sc2
|
I don t need to change SC2. I need to change the gameplay of SC2 because i m pretty sure the game could be better if the variaton of tasks is improved. The ground control is lacking, the repeatability of the game isn t enought trought my eyes that s why i m more focused on economy changes. The idea is clear : create a ressource which is spreading everywhere on the map while blue mineral field are concentrated locally, contrary to violet mineral field which cover the map ponctually but oftenly.
One thing is strange to me, it s the high number of bases compared to the size of the map AND the repartition of these bases which are all near the border. Without too much explication, you can also see that the end game arrive soon in the expansion of your base, which means that for Terran or Protoss (avoid discuss zerg three base ahead by now), the third base setup match to the end game (in term of mineral income), and unfortunetly i say that the size of this three bases is too small for the stake of territory. Then, usually Zerg have been advantages by their vision so, they don t take enought risks also in the developpement of their strategy
I have many reasons to think that the postion of the minerals field behind each base is ridiculous. I could have developped my argument a little bit if I hadn't wanted to give you an answer today
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
