We are still victims of ill game design for E-sports


#33

Still waiting on those hundreds of examples of people claiming zerg are thematically broken and it ruins the game…

You’re creating an arbitrary problem that doesn’t exist in order to make an argument for a different arbitrary problem that doesn’t exist. Both NE and zerg are fine thematically.


#34

I’ll start with 69 people for starters on the very first immediate google search

and then let you think about how foolish what you say may be before I continue


#35

I have a horrible weakness for rambling.
For going on and on and on and on…
Respectfully speaking you put me to absolute shame for how much time your posts require to get through.

That said, to my eyes at least, a number of the issues you’ve brought up strike me as having less to do with design philosophy and more to do with the economics.

Particularly when referring to the Zerg.


#36

Let me complete it as a philosophy for you then

The snaring effect from the quick fuse of multiple drones to make creep colonies

The overlords self destructing underground to release all the broodlings that their life pool is worth and currently valued all at once…

So when used together it becomes more of a reliable weakening

But since lord and drones are sacrificed for a reliable weakening, does it necessarily mean better economy?

Only really if the drones can unfuse out of the creep colony and go back to mining…

Putting the zerg food supply in to the conflicting red (since lord was lost)

Which was always identified previously as part of the game

And so much so, I will tell you… that it is critical to the philosophy of zerg in a mathematical representation…

Quite frankly though I think your sense hit the nail on the head, and I just drove it in all the way…


#37

As foolish at it was to claim my revision only cut down on your post length by 1/3rd when it actually cut over 90%?

As far as that thread goes. It’s from 2015. Zerg was totally broken for a very short period during 2015 (the infamous launch of the Swarm Host that ruined the race).

2015 was a very unique, very unfortunate time for SC2. Bet you can’t find anything from prior to the HoTS release, or after the LotV release.

Even ignoring the fact that 69 people liking that post doesn’t mean 69 people feel the entire race is broken to the point they can no longer play the game, there’s a huge difference between “man this is broken” and “man this disgraces the races identity.” And the fact that your claim was “the majority of the fans and critics” thought they were broken.

But good job on that 1 4 year old post with a whole 69 likes.


#38

The rest of my post outside the paragraph talked about zerg…

And yet, here you are… 90% of your post talking about zerg


#39

And? It’s called being off topic. We’re not even discussing WC3 anymore. It’s just another of many reasons why you shouldn’t ramble while making your point. It makes it that much easier for someone to distract from what you’re trying to say.


#40

The inherrent problem with balancing the Shadowmeld at night with day bonuses for uprooted trees is that it implies buildings should be used offensively.

Which is like promoting Proxy Hall Militia and Tower rushing because Humans identity is building fast. This is a bad thing for the game because no race should be promoted to ‘Tower rush’ as a viable strategy. It’s always going to be considered cheese strat.

Here’s another bad example - Blight in lore corrupts and saps the life out of living units.
If you add that in as a game mechanic suddenly you open up major cheese strats rather than promoting healthy competitive gameplay. Suddenly Undead have the best defense in the game, and arguably the best means of tower rushing.


#41

Humans already tower rush as a viable strategy…
The reason why it’s viable is because of how successfully it can be bluffed, especially minus the cancel mechanic…
Defense is much more a significant part of the game of wc3 due to upkeep as well…


#42

So you would like to promote Night Elf building rush as a viable strategy? Is this ehat you are saying then? Think on what position you are defending and think of your answer clearly.


#43

You know it’s a strange thing, comparing lumber and gold to minerals and vespene gas. One could say that different games are different here and I would understand their point particularly… However, at the end of the day, one resource has to be more like one than the other. With that said we can note that in wc3 that defense structures cost both types of resources while in starcraft only one. Is this good for e-sports? Is this even decent game design conceptology?

In regard to the fact that defense in wc3 costs both types of resources, I’m going to have to say that this proves my case even more…

How can you NOT have a defense that severely pushes the line of classification in specialization when it costs even both forms? A time and place for a unit quality movement speed defense structure…

HOW NOT?

It can’t be denied…

Defense has to be also part of a good countering system if it costs both resource types…


#44

You make good points here, but ultimately your suggestion falls flat for having no relevance to the points you bring up.

  • Ancients have an upgrade to increase movespeed, locked by tier. This is equivalent of other Faction upgrades like Fortified Structures or Spiked Barricades.
  • Movement speed upgrade in the day has no relevance to increased base defense. In fact, this only promotes offensive use.
  • Ancients with increased movespeed in the day provides improved NE daytime creeping, an advantage they should not be given.

So honestly you are not wrong, you are simply suggesting a change for all the wrong reasons. It can be denied because it is a gameplay change that has negative impact to how the game is played. And for the most part, it seems that you acknowledge that you are disregarding game balance for the sake of your suggestion.

Being that this is an RTS and not a novel, there’s honestly no reason to suggest a gameplay change and not suggest a Lore change instead. If you aren’t going to address balance, then you shouldn’t suggest ideas that will effect how the game is played.


#45

Upgrades that cost both resource types for defense that costs both resource types is a grossly terrible concept.

In fact… it just immediately reminds one of how speed upgrade redudancy in zerg is also a grossly bad concept, however, not quite as bad as the prior due to it being inferior to the lack of their 2 sided philosophical completion.

‐-------------------------------------

All this does come back to inverted incompletionism…

NE one speed upgrade that doesn’t even achieve unit quality movement speed, if it’s an issue then I know why… the upgrade shouldn’t exist.

Zerg many speed upgrades which implies the risk of needing the units to then become overly fast, and if they are then I know why it is an issue…

Because they do not slowly lose life off creep (and if the upgrades remain they should have instant reasearch)

Behold… inverted incompletionism from both sides of the spectrum.


#46

Sorry did i read someone say wc3 is a defense game ?

“Defense is much more a significant part of the game of wc3 due to upkeep as well”

Atlas bro are you from mars or moon ?

Defense is universally a punished and fated to doom strategy in wc3, soo much soo that you even wonder why its even there if its being punished that much.


#47

I don’t think you know what you are talking about or what I’m talking about relative to upkeep…


#48

Why do people always do this?

“Hey you know that game that came out 15 years ago, but people around the world love so much that its getting a full remaster in 2019? Yea it sucks, and they should change everything about it.”

Forum Mod Edit: This post has been edited by a moderator due to masked language as it is in violation of the Code of Conduct.


#49

“change everything” lol

Clearly you aren’t talking about Wc3 in your unspecified comment relative to the point.

a minor flip flop for one race and great opportunity for quality additions by taking away low quality redundancy does not qualify as legitimate change and nor should it qualify as legitimate change in anyone’s book.

I would say that a few things suggest some outstanding alterations though that don’t go against the implication of the design as is and if work in harmony with the design implications as is then cannot really be change but rather positive addition.

You’d have to ask the Original Designers apparently

Does the creep colony represent reactive quantity as the pure differential to the other races? And does the overlord represent aggressive low quality with the utmost potential *when used in tandem with the reactive quantity side because there has to be two concepts that come together to complete a “nature” for a race whos actual power is merely strong potential and has the same tech tree concept as the races from wc3 who have strong natural elements and can climb the tech tree in anyway?

Zerg is also a parallel production race implying complete direction situational.
There isn’t another race in all 7 of the races from both games that produce in this manner until you reach sc2’s terran reactor and… I’m not going there. Different eras are more different than different games. Stupidity spiraling out is only worth a silent war inside one’s self between conduct and rage and nothing more for what it already steals from one’s life experience as is.


#50

This post makes me hate humanity.


#51

That’s why you play Zerg or Undead. So you can wipe humanity out.


#52

Zerg and Undead get so misunderstood… they’re just trying to elevate humanity to another state of existence.