What if we stopped patching StarCraft 2…
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2024
- The economy change in StarCraft 2 - • How the increased work...
Check out Our new Project FGC Storyteller - / @fgcstoryteller
& My personal SC2 Channel - / @gaming_essays
🔹 Support the channel - www.donationalerts.com/r/espo...
🔹Reddit page - / bassetyt
🔹Twitter page - / bassetsc2
🔹 Discord server - / discord
🔹 PSISTORM Patreon - / membership
Timecodes:
00:00 How Brood War existed with almost no patching
02:00 The positive side of regular balance changes
03:52 The negative side of frequent balance changes
07:46 Conclusion?
Sources:
Liquidpedia metagame article - liquipedia.net/starcraft/Meta...
Tasteless & Bisu meta - • StarCraft History: Bis...
SaiyanKMC analysis of SC2 vs SCBW - • Starcraft 2 is dying b...
Artosis - does broodwar need a patch - • Does SC1 NEED a Balanc...
Has mass oracles - • Has Oracles - IEM Shan...
PartinG soultrain - • Parting Soul Train
SC2HL channel - / @sc2hl - Ігри
🔸The economy change in StarCraft 2 - ua-cam.com/video/oGU7GORH7vM/v-deo.html
🔷 My personal SC2 Channel with guides and video essays - www.youtube.com/@Gaming_Essays
Timecodes:
00:00 How Brood War existed with almost no patching
02:00 The positive side of regular balance changes
03:52 The negative side of frequent balance changes
07:46 Conclusion?
Rts can be patched also via the maps that are introduced or removed. It's true that Broodwar has not received an update in 23 years, bur the maps evolution completely changed the game.
Maybe Blizzard did not update SC1 so much because it don´t have control of the online matches, so no incentive. But I like when SC2 change things. And the patches in SC2 can be a side effect of the map style not changing that much since WoL. The new map pool show this potential.
I enjoy your content. I think getting a better microphone (when possible) will improve it even further.
SC2 strove to make every unit / tech path viable, or at least usable occasionally, in each MU, and was largely successful at it.
That's exponentially much harder to do than to make a game where some units are used and some are bad and almost never used.
For example, in SC2 even rushing to air tech is viable very occasionally, like going mass air in TvT, or rushing to Tempest/Carrier in PvZ or PvT, or rushing to Phoenixes in PvP).
For Terran, you can go bio or mech in each MU, with the exception of TvP having mech being very weak throughout SC2 history but still able to be used on some maps occasionally.
Zerg is very versatile and can change their composition very zerg-like.
Protoss can open with any of their 3 tech paths in every MU to a degree.
Which sc2 mod do you play?
can you share the name, would love to play this ‘Sc2’ you describe.
current state of the game not sure.
Problem: patch + map changes.
Generally biggest problem we balance around ‘Toss wins major tournament’, but Gm/ Qualifiers are overflowing with toss.
and on the other hand a whole race is removed because of one player step by step.
I hope we get a patch to fix things in Sc2.
But it's nice that it works like this for BW.
I think bi-yearly changes are good. I come from League where there are a lot of patches but effective changes happen twice a year. This I think has been the reason the game is fresh. It has changed in years, but the core fundamentals are similar. I think SC2 can do something similar to change the dynamic of the races but keep the core gameplay similar. The best players should be able to adapt and the new players will like the fact that the game still feels fresh and new after so many years. A part of being a pro is your adaptability to new challenges. A changing game can be just that. It requires one s humbling before going further and understanding that you knowledge of the game or mathchup has been altered by a new change. This should be welcomed and appreciated, noth throwned upon.
Regular patches aren’t needed. There’s a benefit from not having patches over long periods. Players also often get overconfident in their analysis of the game’s balance, and demand changes before they are needed.
regular patches are needed but not regual in the sense of every 4 monhts rather every 1.5-2 years
I think it's better if patches eventually end and balance via map selection takes over. If you are still patching the game 10 years later to me it feels like you didn't make the game properly.
100%, and after a point balance patches feel so bad.
Speaking from a League of Legends perspective, you can tell which ones are just to shake things up, and are most likely ruining the existing balance for the sake of variety.
This usually happens before the start of tournaments in League of Legends, to put the ‘fun to watch’ champions on top
If your preferred playstyle wasn’t the one enabled by the unnecessary changes, you just have to deal with it, and it feels horrible.
League of Legends hasn’t even settled on its fundamentals after 15 years. The map, items, and runes and the design philosophy behind them all, still keeps changing
I want to see it settle so they can focus on adding content, and so that the player base can focus on improving elsewhere instead of having to re-learn things over and over again
Chess has been around for thousands of years and the only thing that changes is players' strategies and understanding of the game as a whole.
However, chess is a completely semetrical game and has almost a 60% rate for games ending in a draw in the competitive field. Video games weren't originally designed for competition, but primarily for entertainment. They aren't balanced and do need to be reworked in order to have the same effect.
I do personally think that balancing is being considered the normal approach today and needs to have an ideal goal to reach. I can tell you from a perspective of almost 3 decades that gamers don't fully understand the game they are playing today and could make progress with new strategies.
‘Rochade’ was apparently introduced in 1550. I'm not sure about ‘en passant’.
Maybe the patch cycle is every 500-1000 years in chess.
@blessyou3999 There was a redesign in how the pieces were moved in chess before the 1600s, but it wasn't enough to change the way the game was played. The goal was to decrease the amount of moves a game normally takes to finish.
If you take a look at the average pro gamers strategies, they revolve around dps. One of the biggest oversights in rts/strategy games is how valuable the Canon fodder is. Due to the population/supply cost, they are the key to map control. It is a common theme of quantity over quality. Even in chess, the pawns often dictate what pieces are more valuable because they create the structure of the position.
Maps play an extreamly large role in how games play out. Some current SC2 maps are extreamly challenging for zerg to deal with for example.
SC2-s unit counter system gives an extra layer that makes balancing multitude harder.
In sc1 you have flat damage + upgrade + splash.
Its simpler to figure out optimal paths.
In sc2 with "bonus damage against" buildpaths will be shaked up with any and every changes.
This is just straight up incorrect. Brood War had an (albeit non-intuitive) counter system, too. Concussive, explosive, and normal damage are a thing.
Vultures do 20 damage and should murder every ground unit, why do Ultras smash them so hard? It's cause their damage is concussive and they only do 5.
@@direct278 "extra layer" =/= "not exist"
If all you have is damage + upgrade the counter system is boiled down to speed, attack speed, animation time, enemy unit health and armor
Like siege tanks are countering zergling, because they oneshots them and the splash damage makes them good vs horde enemies. We could say even zerglings could technically counter them if you can split them in time, wasting the aoe damage to a single unit while the rest makes a surround.
Ultralisks are good counters because even if they get hit, they will survive, and they are chonky too, so the splash damage wont hit so many units either. (this reminds me the time when Ultralisk beats skytoss in sc2 highlights)
But in sc2 siege tanks have extra damage against armored units. And this extra LAYER changes many scenarios.
And this is a 1vs1 unit type. Because you don't only mixnmatch your army as tech lvl + dps + dimension (air/ground unit and attack way)
but you mix a "extra damage against xy" Chargelots are good, cyclones arent even if they could zoom in between two shots. Stalker forward blinks arent used either. (well, mostly because a siege tank is never by itself)
This creates a metagame too where you can force enemy reaction too. And balancing makes it so much harder because when you change a number, it massively changed unit counter survivability too.
Starcraft1 is "complete" so the highest level of play is mechanical now.
A similar example happened when in Sc2 (if I recall correctly) Dark attacked his own broodling with Broodlords to swarm the enemy, since they provided the vision. I don't think anyone recreated that, and haven't seen a directed nerf against this either.
But if SC2 would never get any patches anymore eventually people would become a necessary mechanical skill to high level gameplay.
But the immortal shield mechanic was changed often due to its rush harass cheese potential.
More active and passive skills exists too that would "brake" sc1. Like walljumps.
SC1 also has "bonus damage against".
For example, vultures only deal their full 20 damage to small units (like zealots) but only 5 to large ones (like dragoons). Whereas siege tanks deal 70 damages to large units and only 35 to small ones.
That's why zealots counter siege tanks and dragoons counter vultures.
I cant post link but see the damage type page on liquipedia.
Приятный акцент
I don't like how people play the same game for more then 20 years. I think that Brood War could've been better if it had patch once in a while. Problem is that Blizzard has no control over Korean pro scene. Pros would reject the patches and stick to playing what they know.
What's do you mean you don't like people playing the same game for 20 years?
Why would they reject it, if game kept on being patched for last 20 years it would just be normal for them. Main reason Blizzard abandoned rts is simply because they hit the jackpot with world of warcraft. Until they saw how much profit esports can bring, then they decided to make sc2.
I mean brood war and smash melee are both over 20 years old yet both metagames are STILL changing as we speak
Man you would _hate_ chess then.
@@korakys 😆
... why does my comment immediately disappear after posting when there is no link or stuff in it at all?
Edit 1:
seriously i repost it, refresh the video and it is not visible ...
Edit 2:
so i tried about 6 times now but it still disappears every time ... funny enough, this post here remains WITH edits ... soooo i don't know
UA-cam has been having issues the past week my man.
patches are cringe and patch games waste our practice time
Broodwar is imba AF but nobody can play the thing well because of the garbage engine. There are 6 units in that game that never get built. Stop giving Broodwar as an example for perfect game design.
the win rates between all the races are within 3%, wtf do you mean its imbalanced?
Which units *never* get built? I agree that there are too many units that *very rarely* get built. But I've seen an ASL match won thanks to a player going Scouts at the right time in PvT, and I think Scouts are almost universally considered to be the worst unit in the game.
@@DrLife121 its pretty safe to say that the worst unit in sc1 is worse then the worst unit in bw. ghost devour and scouts are definalty worse then the swarmhost i guess ? is bw a worse game because it has less viable unites porobaly not. also the reason bw seems so balnaced is obviosuly the impossibel to reach skill celing in sc2 players can macro perfectly if they are not interrupted especially zerg ever since they got the abiltiy to shift Q inject. terran can almost macro perfect droping a mule a few secs to late is not a big deal. and toss probably is the hardest to min max as they need to deal with chrono boost and warb in mechanic. but compere to just builing units in sc1 its not even close.
even if pathfining would work the same simply allowing bigger control groups and instant harvesting after recuritmen would compelety tip the balance.(probably in zergs favor as sc1 zerlings are darn good units)
When everything’s imbalanced, nothing is imbalanced.
SC2 was killed by patches. Warcraft3 is being killed by patches right now. Broodwar has no signs of decline.
If your core gameplay was designed correctly you would only ever need small changes and new maps. SC2 went the wrong direction with both expansions and now its not even fun to play or watch.
You mean that the peak was WoL? lol. No.
pre legacy SC2 was ass, it's only gotten better imo.
@@ahuzel Whatever you may consider the "peak" never reached the balance/excitement of brood war because the whole design was flawed from the core.
SC1 sucks tbh. Bad control that never got updated, bad balance as especially dark swarm. Idk why people keep giving SC1 a free pass and call it perfect while clearly it's far from balanced.
Because all three races are competetive, and because, people believe that it is safe from being butchered by blizzard disbalance team.
Bc all three races have their own advantages (positional rewarding, near instantaneous unit production and strong for cost units) and advantegous units (T: Vulture, Tank, Vessel, Z: Muta, Ling, Defiler, P: Reaver, Arbiter, Zealot)
Additionally I feel like bad control makes the game healthier... And makes it a more fun game no? When there's virtually no difference between a pro's and a beginner's SCVs going for work strikes, it makes less for situations where people don't really have any option to win other than just to be faster and allows comebacks, similarly the 12 max unit selection disallows deathballs which ruin so many games in SC2 (like the notorious A moving problem in sc2)
I’ve been here since minute 0