[SC2B] Filling the Void

On July 26 2010 15:56 Sentenal wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 26 2010 11:18 the.bishOp wrote:

On July 26 2010 09:21 Sentenal wrote:

On July 26 2010 06:32 the.bishOp wrote:

On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:

On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:

On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:

On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:

On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:

On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:
[quote]

The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro.

What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here".

But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that.

Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand.

This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game.

But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have.

You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting.

We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other.

I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around.

vAltyR puts it quite well:

On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:
[quote]
Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed.

However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics.

Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated.

We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going.

That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles.

People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra.

And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game.

Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition.

Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be?

Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army.

If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you.

How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell?

Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have.

Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth.

Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO.

You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning.

God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness.

I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position.

Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that?

SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all.

Personally, things don't seem more fragile to me. In BW, you had spider mines and Siege tanks killing 100 supply worth of Dragoons in a matter of seconds. You had control groups of hydras exploding from a single storm, or Reaver scarab. People used lings more. Bio TvZ was a battle of two glass armies dueling with each other. Now you have stuff like Roaches, Mauraders, and Immortals, who specialize in not getting killed.

Anyway, I still think you are looking at the proposed changes in a vacuum. Lets say there is more cast time added, to for example, Fungal Growth. Yes, that would make Fungal Growth in its current form, with its current numbers, into a very high risk spell with rewards that don't equal the risk. If the effects of the spell were buffed, then it would balance that out. This game will be undergoing balance changes for at least the next 2 years, so the fact that things are going to be rebalanced and fixed is a given. If the game is going to be made more exciting, and into a game that will truly surpass BW, the things talked about in the OP should be addressed early in the life of the game, so Blizzard has more time to get everything balanced.

Tweaking numbers on the spell, like range/duration/damage/radius would not decrease its risk but only increase its reward. A build without casters (that are already heavily favored anyway) would have yet more stability. You would have to tweak numbers on ALL units to "slow down" the pace.

Things happen quicker in SC2 because you see a lot more units engaging at THE SAME time. AOE damage is "smarter" too, when units AI control the "overkill" aspects of tanks.

I am not looking at the changes in a vaccuum. That is in fact kind of what the article proposes. Changes disregarding balance issues. It's like if Blizzard patches and changes how AOE damage on tanks and similar units work.

Who the hell is arguing for the game to be slowed down? How is that even relevant to anything here?

And yes, you are looking at it in a vacuum. Op says "make these changes to make the game more exciting". And then people like you come in and say "wahh imbalance, protoss bias, bufffin Protoss!!!" Even though it has been stated numerous times that the article isn't about balance. IF the article is just talking about design (which it is), there is no reason to bring balance into the equation. Are you incapable of discussing things like design without bringing in irrelevant topics?

[SC2B] Filling the Void - Page 14