Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
| ||
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
SiegeFlank
United States410 Posts
| ||
MrDudeMan
Canada973 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:55 DrN0 wrote: This is extremely intelligent, knowledgable and well written argument. I find it very hard to disagree with you being a BW player myself. And whilst I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying, I would also like to add that the current core units of any army lack the exciting micro that was so entertaining to BW. However, comparing BW to SC2 right now is not fair, and here is why: Brood war was the greatest game of all time in my opinion, but it was an expansion. The game only truly became great after the second version was released, so I say reserve criticism until HOTS is released, the general style of units being released look like they are trying to make the game more complex and harder to micro I say wait until HOTS has had at least 3 months of competitive play before proposing any game changes. Having said that it really is ridiculous the amount of time Blizzard leave between games. We have been left with an unfinished product for way too long it is only too right for the community to start getting annoyed. Personally I think the best option would be to throw the communities' weight behind an entirely different RTS game, one designed with competitive play in mind, however organising a mass exodus like this is damn near impossible. I hate to say it but we are entirely at Blizzard's mercy at least for a few more years. What other RTS comes close to Starcraft II? Not trying to brag, I just don't know of any other competitive RTS that has the same style. About the OP: Very long and interesting read. And I do agree with it on paper. However do we need to wait for HotS to do this? Why not just start experimenting with it now. Even if it might not have blizzard ladder support, through the community sites we can get a few thousand people to test it out, maybe even some progamers (though unlikely). Also is there any chance you could make all the map pictures in a spoiler box, sorry to nitpick it just slows down scrolling through the text. | ||
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:25 Depetrify wrote: Also raise supply cap :D Yes, I think this needs to happen. Armies also need to take up more than one screen. | ||
architecture
United States643 Posts
Resource reduction is a reasonable idea. The only issue is that the races may not have been given adequate tools to deal with this. On one hand, T is really strong at low income play, and striking outlying expansions. Good luck holding 3rd/4th if you have to take them early as Z/P against bio. On the other hand, T is also awful at holding outlying expansions late game, since there's no way to convert excess minerals into foodless defense. So, I think there's really two components that need to be looked at. There needs to be a benefit to taking more bases. But there also needs to be ways to create RELIABLE positions that allow you to defend multiple bases. With hosts + semi-swarm, I think Z is headed in the right direction in HotS. What is missing is for TvP to be addressed, ideally with something like mines. | ||
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
| ||
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
| ||
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
And yea,I agree with the majority of the OP but as well I still think that the majority of sc2 problems comes from just pure bad unit design and the mineral count change won't help solve that core problem. | ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:12 TG Manny wrote: I think that SC2 is better for being a game of positioning rather than micro That's what it is, yes. But should it be? Why? When maps start evolving more to incoorperate macro game oriented bases as well as interesting defensible terrain for all races we will see SC2 doing even better. Here is where this gets fun. I challenge you to find someone who claims to be more at the forefront of figuring out what a "macro map" is than myself. You wont. On top of other things, there is a theory called "Circle Syndrome" that I invented, and it basically encompasses all the major strokes of what makes a macro map. It has gone largely unnoticed by the community as a whole, but go ahead and ask pretty much any melee mapmaker about it and they'll be like "yup Circle Syndrome is very important". You will be hard pressed to find someone more familiar with what happens in these theoretical "macro" maps. And I'm not just saying it, I know there are huge problems with 8m2g. At the moment it is "let me get my decent tech and a few ups and push while you're upgrading". Because of the high damage content and high rates of fire, upgrades are so important and AoE being so killer, you want to get a ton of sustainable army and keep your opponent from making a better one. TvT is a great example of pushing when you see an opening, controlling space, and placing units in opportune positions to do damage. Those 8 marines and a medivac? Won't do shit walking into a siege line alone. Safely landed in the opponent's main? Oh there goes 1/3 of your workers, your next upgrade, and/or some reactors! Did you unsiege too many of your tanks in a vulnerable location? Here comes the huge wave of replaceable bio to lower the tank count considerably. If we were to inherently "slow down" the games mining trends, we wouldn't be able to pay for all the upgrades and siege tanks so easily. All of a sudden, 8 marines and a medivac is worth a little more but can cause the same amount of damage (which inherently does more damage since stuff is more time expensive with less resources available). Or people would just figure out the most economical builds to get quick 3/4 bases and defend them well enough from attacks just like our standard 1gate FE, 1 rax FE, and hatch first (and in some cases now, double expands off of limit resources). Less siege tanks doesn't make the game more intriguing, it will just prolong the game longer. If the damages/mechanics aren't changed and there is less overall income, we'll stay in "early game" and "passive midgame" much longer. The only units that are micro intensive early are marines and sometimes stalkers+sentries. It'll either make them OP or UP. If anything, I'd like to see HotS continue SC2s trend, as it opens up a lot of possibilities for tech play and 1 base allins. If we only had 1 gas per base (even with slightly higher collection rate), zerg would be dead in the water using only lings and some banes, terrans wouldn't have as many ghosts, upgrades, or starport units, and protoss would be clinging to their zealots for deal life because of how gas expensive even their gateway armies are. None of the example maps have relatively more minerals than gas... either it's a direct 25% decrease with 6m1hyg, or a 12.5% or 25% increase of gas with 7m2g or 6m2g. Fast Edit: Remember, static defense powerful into midgame and longer currently. What happens if 3 cannons, bunkers, or spines pop up at each base? Same stalematey pump to 200 and win type stuff. Not even close. On March 17 2012 03:13 Wildmoon wrote: I think you shouldn't put something like Blizzard only want money,wartered down or something like that in it though because nothing constructive will come out of it. That was mostly an appeal to ethos to get people riled up about Blizzard ^^ To get the frustrated enough to do something about it. On March 17 2012 03:18 0neder wrote: I'm curious as to your thoughts on the the relative weakness of tech units and AoE compared to BW (see Tank, Ultra, Storm, etc. Well most of them are in the OP basically. Lots of resources + unit clumping = nerfed AoE The strength of a lot of tech units is mostly about controlling space. With the 3-base cap, there is far less need to control space, so the units aren't designed for it as much. They're much more about just ramming yourself into the opponent, and less of a spread out dance, so to speak. On March 17 2012 03:26 Diamond wrote: Holy shit Barrin I thought you were gonna un wall of text this? I tried and failed. I could probably try again and succeed after like 10-20 hours of work, but I can't justify doing that at this point. I've put in all I have to give. On March 17 2012 03:30 Zanno wrote: You're actually so close to the mark but whizzing right by the real crux of the problem. The issue is the saturation curve. In BW workers are dumb as hell and mining can be totally random at times once you get beyond one worker to per patch. In SC2 workers are super efficient and you hit maximum saturation on a single base quickly. You can easily take a look at a worker count and make a gauge as to who is ahead or not, whereas in BW need to take a look at whether they control gas bases, mineral only. BW's awful AI pathing gives you incentive to spread out, whereas SC2 returns seem almost but not quite totally linear. You'll never see zergs be like "whatever, i'll just put like 6 drones at this base because it will probably die anyway" in SC2 because there's no advantage compared to keeping an extra 6 drones in your nat, unless you're at max capacity there. There isn't a significant enough advantage in SC2 to having equal workers but being up 3 bases to 2. That's also why you rarely see insane situations where one players is up 5 bases to 2 in SC2 because there's no advantage to being up in bases beyond needing more CCs to grow your worker count faster. Not to mention that in BW there are infinity ways to make an entire worker line immediately go up in smoke, so holding perfect saturation is not only bad because you put all your eggs in one basket, it means that in certain situations you can't hold perfect saturation for long to begin with. You know, I almost did whizz right past this. But I didn't: BTW due to AI, the BW lines will continue to level off while the SC2 remains linear. [Rebuttal @ LaLuSh]+ Show Spoiler + What this means basically is that in BW you could keep adding workers for quite a while and even at like 40 workers on 10 patches, another worker might still increase your collection rate (albeit a tiny amount). LaLuSh essentially argued (his main reasoning against Less Resources per Base) ... We can probably also say that after ~22 workers mining minerals in an 1base vs 1base situation, there is no differentiating between a cheese and a “normal” build until an expansion is up and operational. Does this imply that expanding is more dangerous in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar? I don’t really know, that might be stretching it a bit too far; though there is certainly less of an effect of expanding before you are beginning to supersaturate your first base. Also: supersaturating your first base against someone who cuts worker production will provide you with no other real benefit than having workers to maynard. Using this logic one could claim that expanding is in fact more dangerous. If the races reach their fully saturated states quicker in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar, and if a cut in worker production after a certain point doesn’t reflect on your income at all, then a continued worker production will only really mean you are cutting your army size by the amount you invest in workers and in an expansion. This effect is most apparent on the first base and quickly tapers off for each expansion (becoming nothing at 3 bases for 8m, 4 bases for 6m) until a base runs out. This is mostly an early game thing, and not even half of the problem. We want people to keep expanding. Also, there is the effect of BW in SC2 already in a somewhat lesser form. To go back to this graph: + Show Spoiler + If you look at the difference between 2 workers on a patch and 3 on a patch you can see the similarity. Remember this is an isolated scenario where the third worker doesn't try to move away (they tend to in both games btw just all the time in BW and perhaps 40% of the time in SC2). If you were to extrapolate this to a full-base scenario and extend the graph farther: in BW the line will curve very slowly and continue to rise slightly for every worker for a while, while in SC2 the curve is much more straight, rigid, and cuts off abruptly. But there is still a very major 2 worker -> 3 worker discrepency. The *ONLY* way to get the effect of BW non-linearness while still preserving all other desirable factors would be to change the worker AI/stats to be much like BW (which is essentially off-limits for everyone but Blizzard). There have been many attempts at proving this wrong, trust me. Furthermore, this effect is there in 8m regardless. I will agree that Less Resources per Base makes it a little worse, 6m might be too much actually, but 7m is seriously just fine (capping at 21 workers). This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot. Also note that MULE's are disproportionately better than chronoboost and inject (as pointed out by LaLuSh), this is mostly a balance thing and I think you'd be surprised how much Terran might actually need this in Less Resources per Base; ALL of their units are ranged and they rely on a critical mass effect which is hindered greatly by Less Resources per base. Sorry, but you just can't predict the balance. While we're on arguments that are (almost) against Less Resources per Base, it's worth pointing out that all of these resources and self-perpetuation is almost necessary to make mechanics as important as possible in the face of MBS/etc. However, having more bases over more area is a huge part of increasing the importance of mechanics. To highlight this part: This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Am going to read this right now. I just have to say, seeing "Why fewer resources per base are better for the game." on the TL home is one of the best thing's that's ever happened to me. I'll return with more comments. | ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:55 DrN0 wrote: This is extremely intelligent, knowledgable and well written argument. I find it very hard to disagree with you being a BW player myself. And whilst I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying, I would also like to add that the current core units of any army lack the exciting micro that was so entertaining to BW. However, comparing BW to SC2 right now is not fair, and here is why: Brood war was the greatest game of all time in my opinion, but it was an expansion. The game only truly became great after the second version was released, so I say reserve criticism until HOTS is released, the general style of units being released look like they are trying to make the game more complex and harder to micro I say wait until HOTS has had at least 3 months of competitive play before proposing any game changes. Having said that it really is ridiculous the amount of time Blizzard leave between games. We have been left with an unfinished product for way too long it is only too right for the community to start getting annoyed. Personally I think the best option would be to throw the communities' weight behind an entirely different RTS game, one designed with competitive play in mind, however organising a mass exodus like this is damn near impossible. I hate to say it but we are entirely at Blizzard's mercy at least for a few more years. On March 17 2012 04:04 architecture wrote: The problem with late game is that there are no positional units. While armies are extremely reliant on position, they have no way to create position, so there's very little way to create and propagate an advantage that way. You can only move your army in blobs, and try to force the other guy's blob out of position. The result is a ridiculously 1D and volatile late game. Resource reduction is a reasonable idea. The only issue is that the races may not have been given adequate tools to deal with this. On one hand, T is really strong at low income play, and striking outlying expansions. Good luck holding 3rd/4th if you have to take them early as Z/P against bio. On the other hand, T is also awful at holding outlying expansions late game, since there's no way to convert excess minerals into foodless defense. So, I think there's really two components that need to be looked at. There needs to be a benefit to taking more bases. But there also needs to be ways to create RELIABLE positions that allow you to defend multiple bases. With hosts + semi-swarm, I think Z is headed in the right direction in HotS. What is missing is for TvP to be addressed, ideally with something like mines. Agreed 100%. Addressed here: ------------------- [Individual Unit Micro Potential:] - Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? - [SC2B] Under the Microscope + Show Spoiler + "SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro." - Saracen - Making the Most of your Units - The Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Too Much Firepower, Not Enough Stalkers - Defense, the Defender's Advantage and SC2 - Day[9]'s Musings - Game Design - Baseballs vs. Frisbees + Show Spoiler + [It's not that I find these things wrong exactly. They're actually completely right. I just think they're incomplete; they're not the whole story. Basically, they are suggesting to increase the depth of SC2 (which I completely agree with), while Less Resources per Base mostly increases breadth. It's important to understand that depth and breadth are intrinsically connected, though it could be said that breadth has a bigger effect on depth than vice versa (at least in SC2's case). The biggest difference is that we can actually increase breadth without blizzard (basically).] As written above, [In other words, when armies are smaller each individual unit becomes more important. The armies as a whole are just as important as they were before, but each individual unit can more easily have a bigger impact on the game. A unit's stats/abilities are unchanged, but whatever it could do to multiple it's power becomes amplified in the context of finite actions per minute.] + Show Spoiler [analogies] + Consider the 'Micro vs Macro' dynamic, choosing which one to focus your time on at any given time. When microing each individual unit becomes less effective, it relatively increases the effectiveness of macro'ing instead; it is still important to do the wide strokes of micro (positioning - micro's big brother), but instead of microing little things you might as well just keep your macro up (which is self-perpetuating). + Show Spoiler + "the reason u dont see more micro or more cute moves is not because it doesnt exist. its because this game is fucking hard, i want to do so much more stuff with my units and builds, and use so many timing windows to do stuff but its very hard." - Morrow (Direct Link) Consider the "Impossible" series of maps in BW. You would start with a single big unit or a small group of small units - almost nothing. You had friends with you too and you worked as a team. But they didn't call it "Impossible" for no reason - there was an insanely nutty "obstacle course" (essentially) of stuff in your way, dense packs of stuff (turrets, tanks, everything) that you had to slowly and methodically pick apart - though it was actually possible. Basically you were forced to make your unit(s) become a hundred times more powerful than it would normally be. And you could do it largely because you had nothing else to worry about. Consider the lowly Zergling. Microing around a single zergling isn't going to be very effective quite simply because it is such a small piece of the overall picture. Consider WC3. Economy is almost a non-issue, you can get all the economy you need extremely easily (you could say it is low economy oriented). IMO it is largely because of this that there is a huge focus on micro in WC3. Another way to explain this: + Show Spoiler + So these units have this potential, x (in relation to each other). That's there. That doesn't change. What can change is what the players actually do with that potential. This is what less resources per base targets. I feel stupid saying this, because it's not really this simple, but at the same time in lay terms it really is this simple: less resources per base gives players more time to work with the potential. It does this not only because "there is more time between each stage of the game", but also largely because spending the time microing an individual unit instead of doing something else is less detrimental to those "something elses" by virtue of the fact that you are spending each individual action more efficiently when the armies are smaller. | ||
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
| ||
Vertig0
United States196 Posts
I'm willing to contribute a bit to prize pools for pro showmatches on maps designed to showcase this map style, does that seem like a pretty good way to spread excitement for this style around? | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
I am only in Silver league so my opinion doesn't really count, but I still would like to have Blizzard making 1- or 2-basing a bit less effective in HotS. | ||
figq
12519 Posts
It definitely seemed weird from the beginning of SC2, and the sad conclusion was that Blizzard is pushing for faster simpler games, for reasons that... I believe don't even work. I believe that they would succeed even more if they don't do that. | ||
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
On March 17 2012 04:12 [F_]aths wrote: This was an epic read. I am only in Silver league so my opinion doesn't really count, but I still would like to have Blizzard making 1- or 2-basing a bit less effective in HotS. Um,dude,your opinion is worth actually more than you think.Most people that play this game are in lower leagues and blizzard thinks that they can't or don't want to expand their game over more than 2-3 bases when they play. When we had that Browder interview with Kenniget I think his answer to why there aren't larger maps in the map pool and why they implement shitty "rush maps" is because they don't want to overwhelm casual players with big maps or something along those lines. | ||
| ||