SC2 delays: Blizzard stuck with gameplay mess? - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Retsukage
United States1002 Posts
| ||
EximoSua
171 Posts
| ||
andrewlt
United States7692 Posts
| ||
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
"permanent invisibility on DT's is a gimmick" "Strafing in quake is a gimmick" We all know all these mechanics work well now, lets please refrain from using this word to describe mechanics and abilities we might not agree with. I have attempted to make it clear why something is a gimmick rule, perhaps not clear enough but it is a fairly subtle point of game design rather than just a subjective label. DT invisibility is not a gimmick even if it can be extremely annoying. Detection is a core mechanic of SC and we see units with various interpretations of those rules, DT being permanently invisible as one of the more extreme versions of that. Every invisible unit interacts with detection in the same way, it's one set of rules. Similarly strafing is not a gimmick in Quake 2/3 (assuming you mean strafe jumping), it is a result of the core physics rules from the vector maths, it was not bolted on, it is not a special case. It is also a rather different argument because it's far more akin to something like using Mines to hop a Vulture through a gap or a Pylon to mineral walk a Probe. It is an unintended consequence of existing rules, which in retrospect was judged to have a positive effect on the game. That, to me is a gimmick. The word doesnt mean "things that weren't in SC1". This is just a cheap retort to any criticism of SC2. Perhaps if you were aware of the Quake 3 scene you would know that personally I am in favour of gameplay development as design lead for Promode, I am making a specific criticism of design choices. | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
Gnarg
Netherlands165 Posts
On October 31 2009 03:38 ix wrote: - How do you know their team isn't experienced enough? This is the conclusion to my belief that they're using gimmicks too much, if they were sufficiently experienced at designing competitive games they would understand the danger of gimmicks and have avoided them. Another thing that leads me to believe this is the Thor. They are emotionally attached to it and obviously want it in while it lacks a role. That's terrible game design. The role comes first, you fill it with something that fits, you don't make something you like then figure out where to put it. You make some good points, but I just can't take you seriously when you are this arrogant. Seriously fix that attitude. Your work on some random quake 3 mod I have never heard of doesnt impress me nearly enough that you can make these kind of claims about blizzard. Either back up your claims with some respectable history and experience of your own or lose the attitude. | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
I have to however give 5 thumbs up to the OP who successfully managed to post yet another "I've never played the game but I already know that the game's concept sucks so I'll tell you my own home made concepts instead" under the pretense that the game itself is delayed because of the flaws he presents in the article. Best troll post I've seen in a while and it was entertaining to read. | ||
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
| ||
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
| ||
Kimera757
Canada129 Posts
On October 31 2009 06:45 ix wrote: Thank you, but I would actually characterize the Colossus as a pure design choice and therefore probably having potential to be a positive element of the game, don't take this as a rant against SC2 or change. Isn't cliff-climbing a "gimmick"? I didn't say the Thor has gimmicks, I mean it IS a gimmick. Units are logical combinations of the abilities provided by the core rules that create roles for units. For example the siege tank is high range, AOE and damage with a long reload, if you are considering combinations of abilities you will come up with this although probably not the very clever limitation mechanism of siege. It has a role and it has a simple set of abilities that lead to it fulfilling the role. The Thor had a planned role and some complicated design elements to try to fulfill that role that didn't work. Now they seem to be trying to create a role to place the unit in rather than having a role that is suggested by the game and needs filling. It sounds to me you just disagree with them on having a proper tank in the game. It has a role, and it's one that's unfilled. Perhaps it doesn't need to be filled, but the role is there for the taking. | ||
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On October 31 2009 03:41 FrozenArbiter wrote: SC2 delays have nothing to do with multiplayer balance. yeah seriously. All the real balancing in rts games takes place during the beta and first few years or months of release. Look at war3, balance changed even more radically over that games lifespan even more than in sc. It was absurdly volatile in terms of balance from the time of the beta to a year after release. I seriously doubt they're trying to tinker with sc2's balance and taking too much time on it right now, given that rts games always change a lot in their formative periods. | ||
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
Kimera757
Canada129 Posts
On October 31 2009 08:02 JiYan wrote: Many people agree, and i believe it even has its own thread for discussion, that the Thor does not fit into SC2 because it is simply so massable. It is big, strong, and doesn't really have that much of a weakness. Thats what i recollect from the discussion. Yes, many people disagree. You can't really prove either side right or wrong. However ... massable? If you have a huge economic advantage and make a bunch of battlecruisers, does that make them massable? IMO, the answer is no. | ||
tec27
United States3680 Posts
On October 31 2009 07:24 Gnarg wrote: You make some good points, but I just can't take you seriously when you are this arrogant. Seriously fix that attitude. Your work on some random quake 3 mod I have never heard of doesnt impress me nearly enough that you can make these kind of claims about blizzard. Either back up your claims with some respectable history and experience of your own or lose the attitude. Uh, his talk about CPMA is fairly substantial and respectable history. I dunno how you've never heard of it, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_ProMode_Arena | ||
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
Isn't cliff-climbing a "gimmick"? I already covered this: no, it is an obvious permutation of the rules of blocking. Ground units are blocked by height changes, units and impassables, fliers by nothing, the Colossus is blocked by impassables. | ||
ERGO
United States168 Posts
I see your distinction between core rules and things added on top of that, or gimmicks, and I think it is an important distinction to understand for anybody who wants to talk about game theory. I disagree on one things though, that being the idea that the core rules are always a better way of managing things, except that it is the more difficult route. The ancient game, Go, is basically 100% core rules. The only "gimmick" is there just to prevent an infinite loop situation, everything else is core. The game is so simple you can teach a 10 year old the rules in five minutes no problem. Yet in Go, the depth of strategy is so great that professional players can spend their whole lives, practicing even harder than SC pros do, and they still won't be at the top. There really are 60+ year old players who are still professional but can't make it past the 5 Dan rank. So Go is an extremely good game. Simple rules, huge depth of strategy. It is exactly the kind of game that supports ix's argument. But starcraft is not this same kind of game, and I do not think starcraft follows the same rules. Go is a game of pure strategy, the highest level pro games are played over the course of a few days, in a normal game each move can take up to a minute or so. But starcraft is not like this, by the 10 minute mark sc pros already made 5,000 moves! Starcraft is actually like a hopped up fighting game on steroids, with more action and a larger strategy element. It is about being fast, fast, always faster, with your macro and your micro, it is about being in 10 places at once and keeping tabs on 150 different things every 2 seconds, pushing human multitasking past the limit and deep into the red zone. It also contains elements of brilliant strategy, that's true, but that is something players use to supplement their amazing speed. Extremely smart starcraft players are able to make an advantage with brilliant tactical maneuvers, but it is not a strategic game on the same level as chess or go is. It has something else, the speed at which you come to the correct conclusion is more important most of the time in starcraft than finding the very best possible move. So for this reason, I say that chess and go are a different kind of game than starcraft, and the rules for bettering the game should not be looked at in the same way. A good example is spider mines. This feature of starcraft is one of the most interesting, both as a player and as an observer. They limit mobility, can be extremely cost effective, can backfire. There are many uses for a gimmicky move like this in a game like starcraft. Medic Healing is another example of a gimmick that pays off extremely well. It is for reasons like this that I think these types of "gimmicks" are vital for starcraft. Don't put them in a negative light and think of them as a bad thing, and label them "gimmicks," too quickly. TLDR; I LIKE GIMMICKS IN SC | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
- Why is Blink more of a gimmick than, let's say, the Lurker being unable to fire unless it's burrowed? Or than cliff-jumping? Or than the reaver having to build his ammunition? Or than the siege tank having to switch between siege and tank mode? - Do you think the BC, Archon or Ultralisk were added for different reasons in SC1 than the reasons they added the Thor to SC2? I would imagine all four of the above units were added for the simple reason that they "were cool". I can definitely see the macro mechanics as being potentially bad (as I've said in many threads, I'd prefer it if they were to add the "speed factor" somewhere else, such as they've done with warp gates), but I don't understand why Blink or the Thor is so different from any SC unit~ Also, your points about WC3: Don't you think the lack of variation might have more to do with the smaller scale of the game (along with the almost complete lack of new maps)? I mean, the "simpler" the game (this isn't really a knock on WC3 - I simply mean simpler as in there are less options, like how chess is simpler than Go, simply because there are so many more possible moves at any one time than there is in chess, due the size of the board etc, or like how Limit hold'em is way closer to being solved than No Limit hold'em), the faster it will be "solved"? There probably is a "perfect" way to play SC, and without the massive map variations we'd have the same stagnation as the WC3 scene is presently faced with. If we had played Luna for 10 years, trust me, there would be very little variation in timings or tech choices. Second, you talk about un-used units... Which exactly? I'll compare unused units for WC3 then SC... NE: Mountain giants Chimaeras (somewhat) Hippos (somewhat) Every hero is used at least sometimes, in some matchups. HU: Uh... None? All heroes are usable even if the Paladin is somewhat rare and only vs UD (I think). Orc: Taurens are kinda rare I guess. Headhunters All heroes are used even though the Farseer is kinda rarer these days, and the TC is mostly used vs Talons I think. UD: Necros are quite rare I suppose. The dreadlord doesn't see much use. Terran: Ghost Valkyries (were near completely unused up until last year~) BCs (somewhat rare) Protoss: Scout Dark Archon (seems to becoming somewhat less rare these days) Zerg: Queen (less rare recently) Infested Terran I dunno, maybe the WC3 situation is slightly worse but most units have some use... | ||
Captain Peabody
United States3081 Posts
Basically, your criterion makes no sense. All games have so-called "gimmicks"; pretty much all abilities and unit designs are based around "gimmicks." You are correct that they make the game harder to balance. However, you are incorrect in saying that they make the game unbalanceable. SC1 contains dozens of so-called "gimmicks"; the result of this is not an unbalanceable game but a game that is not balanced under all circumstances. Thus, the game becomes mainly map-dependent for its balance; a stagnant metagame under these circumstances is usually a result of a static map pool. The exact same can hold true for SC2 in its current state. However, you are correct that there are units and abilities that are inherently imbalanced or unbalanceable; and Blizzard has removed many of them over the course of beta (i.e. overload). SC2 as it stands, though, is definitely balanceable to within the bounds needed for competitive play and map-balancing. I'd love to have this chat again in a few months during Beta, though, when both of us know a great deal more about what we're talking about. As it stands, though, your arguments don't hold water. | ||
ppgButtercup
United States159 Posts
I played Warcraft 3 through beta in both classic and the expansion, and I held high ladder positions in both after their respective releases. The "Gimmicks" that ruined Warcraft 3 were mostly made with TFT and were a result of neutral heroes and additional armor and damage types on units. That being said, the actual problem with Warcraft 3 is luck. The way item drops work in the game has effectively made playing at the top-tiers luck based. In a mirror match-up, lets say Orc v. Orc, the player who gets two claws of attack on their Blademaster while the other player gets mantles of intelligence, has a huge advantage. Luck is what has kept Warcraft 3 from being at the same level of competition that Starcraft has. Also, Warcraft 3 was designed with 2v2 being one of the staple game modes. I would argue that the most balanced the game has been was during classic in 2v2 right after the nerf to caster damage. The problem with 2v2 in Warcraft3 is that it makes spectator very difficult to keep up with everything that is going on -- another reason it never really caught on as much. Now... on to something more direct. The Thor does have a purpose in the game: It is a mech unit (Factory) that is capable of dealing damage to non-tier1 infantry in a pushable manner and is also the only Factory unit that can hit air. This is a very important role... do not underestimate the potential for this unit. | ||
| ||