As much as you might think I would write about part 2 of roach patch notes, I realize that the new patch changes a bunch and therefore my old dislike against the 2 food roaches is rather out of date. Needless to say, Overseer's are super buffed and I believe will become really useful in zvt and zvz play.
I'll get back to Starcraft 2 later, but now to the actual post. One thing I noticed while playing certain games and certain websites is ineffective design. This can influence the difficulty of games as well as the effectiveness of websites, sharing information, and so on. when a game is difficult, it can be difficult because of two things:
1)The gameplay itself is difficult
2)the design of the game makes the game difficult
An example of the 1st one is a Touhou game. The game gives you the options and ability to complete the game, score high, and beat insanely tough levels. The UI doesn't take away from the game and displays information in an effective manner.
While large, the sidebar doesn't interfere with game play. Also each characters maneuverability, while different, are all able to beat each level. This means that the game play itself makes the game hard instead of the controls and design of the game. While you can argue they are essentially both designed, one is on purpose and one is coincidental.
An example of the second is Assassins Creed 2. In the game as you play you run into special puzzle dungeons where you have to clear the area using various free-running abilities that you have. While these puzzles are fun, these areas are frequently made harder by bad game design. In the game, the puzzle areas tend to force certain camera angles on you. This is to reveal and help show where you are supposed to go from a certain part, but more frequently it just causes you to mess up. One such part is shown in this video:
If you don't expect the camera to change it is very hard to recover from it. This is an example of a game being more difficult by design than by gameplay.
Of course there are anomalies of these, which I like to call Starcraft. In this game, the flaws in the design actually ADDED to the game depth instead of taking away from it. Mutalisk Stacking, worker AI, pathing, and so on added an extra challenge to the game which allowed more advanced tactics to be used as gameplay and the skill of the players evolved.
One things that games do that most education websites do not is centralize information. All the necessary information for a game can be put on one screen for easy use and browsing. Most online courses, however, fail to do so. Admittedly there is much more information in a course than in a game, but the accessibility of that information is as important in an online course as a video game. Many times schools will only use their established means and not develop effective software to make a solid or easy experience for the user.
Basically, my rant is very simple: If a player or user of a website/game has to ask them selves (assuming that this isn't part of the experience)"how do I manipulate the game to do what I want" which causes them to try and break the game, there is something wrong with the design.
I'll get back to music posts, but I haven't really been listening to anything new or different since the Circa Survive latest album. I'm sure there are plenty of fun new albums to explore, but right now I don't have time to do so.
Showing posts with label Starcraft 2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Starcraft 2. Show all posts
May 25, 2010
May 19, 2010
[Video Games] SC2- Zerg Rage Part 1
It's been 12 days since my last post. Whodathunk it...
Anyways, I've been playing copious amounts of sc2. I find it really fun to play and I've been trying to play it at a high a level as possible, because I'm pro... Yeah...
Anyways I worked my way up to the Gold level (about rank 23) and I fell like I have an okay to good grasp of the game. While I am definitely not at the level of other high level players (like Day9) I feel like I am slowly getting there. I currently took a break because of finals and to keep the game fresh.
Anyways, I play mostly Zerg, and I feel like there should be a few changes to the race since the last patch. The last patch, patch 12, changed the "roach" unit to cost two food instead of one. I find this horrible. Blizzard's reason for the change is because "Mass Roach late game is too strong". That's just stupid. Here's the problem with the nerf:
Let's say it's at the end game. As a zerg player you should/will have at LEAST 3 bases, so therefore you will have at LEAST 72 food worth of drones, give or take 10 food. This is calculated by a normal games mineral patch (8 patches), the amount of drones to about fully saturate the patch (about 16, though 18 doesn't hurt) + extractors (6 total, 3 for each extractor). This is a little generous as your minerals in your main base will run out by then, but for now lets accept 72 drones.
Now 200-72 = 128 food remaining. Now that IS a lot of roaches, but chances are a decent enemy could scout mass roaches and really be able to counter them easily. This is assuming you MASS roaches, meaning no other unit besides roaches. In the old patch (we're also, just for ease, assuming max upgrades due to the "late game" hypothesis) this meant that a roach would have 4 armor and 22 damage @ '2' attack speed. It's really hard to find decent information about exactly how much time '2' is and the exact armor damage reduction values for certain armor types there are, but lets just say it means an average attack speed and a high HP + regen unit. Now roaches were originally stronger, but I feel like the nerfs in previous patches were warranted and the 1 food roach was fine.
Basically their damage is average, but their strength was to take hits. Given that Protoss has the Immortal to absorb hits much more effectively and the Terran has Thors, Medivacs for healing, unit upgrades, and Marauders to absorb and do damage, they have so many more options than zerg. This in of itself doesn't make it game breaking, but lets also look at the Terran and Protoss AoE units. The Tank and Colossus (respectively) are both very strong anti-ground army AoE. And they are both becoming a main part of ZvT/P armies.
Since the roach is nerfed, it means that for every roach we're building, we are removing the ability to produce more higher DPS units such as the hydra. however, all of Zerg's high DPS units are incredibly squishy, with the hydra having 80 hp and banelings dying when they attack and zerglings have 30 hitpoints, it means any strong AoE will will be able to really hurt Zergs ability to be aggressive, and since walling of the ramp are common in games against Zerg, it means that any early game harassment opportunities by zerg are denied, which leaves us with air.
I gotta get ready for a final so I'll continue this later.
Anyways, I've been playing copious amounts of sc2. I find it really fun to play and I've been trying to play it at a high a level as possible, because I'm pro... Yeah...
Anyways I worked my way up to the Gold level (about rank 23) and I fell like I have an okay to good grasp of the game. While I am definitely not at the level of other high level players (like Day9) I feel like I am slowly getting there. I currently took a break because of finals and to keep the game fresh.
Anyways, I play mostly Zerg, and I feel like there should be a few changes to the race since the last patch. The last patch, patch 12, changed the "roach" unit to cost two food instead of one. I find this horrible. Blizzard's reason for the change is because "Mass Roach late game is too strong". That's just stupid. Here's the problem with the nerf:
Let's say it's at the end game. As a zerg player you should/will have at LEAST 3 bases, so therefore you will have at LEAST 72 food worth of drones, give or take 10 food. This is calculated by a normal games mineral patch (8 patches), the amount of drones to about fully saturate the patch (about 16, though 18 doesn't hurt) + extractors (6 total, 3 for each extractor). This is a little generous as your minerals in your main base will run out by then, but for now lets accept 72 drones.
Now 200-72 = 128 food remaining. Now that IS a lot of roaches, but chances are a decent enemy could scout mass roaches and really be able to counter them easily. This is assuming you MASS roaches, meaning no other unit besides roaches. In the old patch (we're also, just for ease, assuming max upgrades due to the "late game" hypothesis) this meant that a roach would have 4 armor and 22 damage @ '2' attack speed. It's really hard to find decent information about exactly how much time '2' is and the exact armor damage reduction values for certain armor types there are, but lets just say it means an average attack speed and a high HP + regen unit. Now roaches were originally stronger, but I feel like the nerfs in previous patches were warranted and the 1 food roach was fine.
Basically their damage is average, but their strength was to take hits. Given that Protoss has the Immortal to absorb hits much more effectively and the Terran has Thors, Medivacs for healing, unit upgrades, and Marauders to absorb and do damage, they have so many more options than zerg. This in of itself doesn't make it game breaking, but lets also look at the Terran and Protoss AoE units. The Tank and Colossus (respectively) are both very strong anti-ground army AoE. And they are both becoming a main part of ZvT/P armies.
Since the roach is nerfed, it means that for every roach we're building, we are removing the ability to produce more higher DPS units such as the hydra. however, all of Zerg's high DPS units are incredibly squishy, with the hydra having 80 hp and banelings dying when they attack and zerglings have 30 hitpoints, it means any strong AoE will will be able to really hurt Zergs ability to be aggressive, and since walling of the ramp are common in games against Zerg, it means that any early game harassment opportunities by zerg are denied, which leaves us with air.
I gotta get ready for a final so I'll continue this later.
Apr 7, 2010
[Rant] Various stuff
It's been a while since I posted a blog. Many reason include being busy, lazy, and not just caring. However, I finally feel like writing something so here I am.
One thing that is interesting is that I saw a food TV show about an Englishman going around the highest obesity areas in the states and trying to fix schools so that they have more healthy foods.
I feel like this is a good endeavor. There are definitely problems with the consumption or at least lack of exercise in the country. However, there are some things that disturb me. How he uses people is really annoying. When he deals with teenagers and young people I feel he does the "Mr. 'cool' guy". The weird thing with 'Mr. Cool' guys is that a) They're rarely cool and b) They try and walk over people. The way he talks to teens seems to be really steamroller. He's so 'energetic' he just doesn't allow the teens and other people to really get a word in edgewise.
The scary bit is how he talks about things. It is also the reason why I don't like the health care bill. He says one of his interviews (paraphrased) that kids need to be told what to do and what is right and wrong. My problem with this is that he is purposefully removing and controlling choices of people because "he knows better".
I'm not saying what he isn't saying is the truth, I'm just saying he is going about it the wrong way, just like the health care bill. Reformatting the lunch lines for healthier food is good, as it gives kids/teens more chances to become healthier. However, the way he's doing so is going through the parent-teacher boards and schools boards and revamping things without any permission.
If I was in his position, I would push for an upgrade in money for proper training for cooks and for healthy food, but I wouldn't go through people or remove choices. Doing so doesn't really stop the problem, it just postpones it. The main problem is poor education through the teaching and through poor teaching from parents. If you don't try and reform these areas, you're just postponing what will happen, not actually fixing the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I saw a video from a the guy who developed Spore. He said something along the lines of being able to take another 6 years of development before coming out with a game he truly thought was fully fleshed out. I actually disagree with him. My example: Starcraft.
Blizzard hasn't patched Starcraft in years, yet it is the one of the biggest e-sports in the world. It has a HUGE following and community. You would think a 12 year old game wouldn't hold as well as it does, but the fact that people keep on coming up with strategies, tactics, and so on really increase the longevity of the game. The game still has ample bugs, bad ai pathing, and so on yet those bugs ended up making the game DEEPER, not shollower. The AI pathing and so on makes the game more challenging. However, many original SC fans are complaining that SC2 doesn't have these so the game is easier. I think the game is actually more challenging, but not because of the issues with the game.
Warcraft 3 doesn't need as high APM, but it requires more thinking because of how tactics and strategies are executed. A player with a good strategy but low APM can still beat a higher APM player if they're timing and strategy is better than someone who doesn't.
For example, the warcraft 3 player Space has an average of about 150-200 apm, yet he is one of the top undead players because of his ability with timing pushes and his excellent micro in battles.
A good way to compare the two games is that SC plays you against the game and the opponent, while WAR3 allows you to focus on what your opponent is doing.
This will draw a bunch of flame from SC players but whatever.
One thing that is interesting is that I saw a food TV show about an Englishman going around the highest obesity areas in the states and trying to fix schools so that they have more healthy foods.
I feel like this is a good endeavor. There are definitely problems with the consumption or at least lack of exercise in the country. However, there are some things that disturb me. How he uses people is really annoying. When he deals with teenagers and young people I feel he does the "Mr. 'cool' guy". The weird thing with 'Mr. Cool' guys is that a) They're rarely cool and b) They try and walk over people. The way he talks to teens seems to be really steamroller. He's so 'energetic' he just doesn't allow the teens and other people to really get a word in edgewise.
The scary bit is how he talks about things. It is also the reason why I don't like the health care bill. He says one of his interviews (paraphrased) that kids need to be told what to do and what is right and wrong. My problem with this is that he is purposefully removing and controlling choices of people because "he knows better".
I'm not saying what he isn't saying is the truth, I'm just saying he is going about it the wrong way, just like the health care bill. Reformatting the lunch lines for healthier food is good, as it gives kids/teens more chances to become healthier. However, the way he's doing so is going through the parent-teacher boards and schools boards and revamping things without any permission.
If I was in his position, I would push for an upgrade in money for proper training for cooks and for healthy food, but I wouldn't go through people or remove choices. Doing so doesn't really stop the problem, it just postpones it. The main problem is poor education through the teaching and through poor teaching from parents. If you don't try and reform these areas, you're just postponing what will happen, not actually fixing the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I saw a video from a the guy who developed Spore. He said something along the lines of being able to take another 6 years of development before coming out with a game he truly thought was fully fleshed out. I actually disagree with him. My example: Starcraft.
Blizzard hasn't patched Starcraft in years, yet it is the one of the biggest e-sports in the world. It has a HUGE following and community. You would think a 12 year old game wouldn't hold as well as it does, but the fact that people keep on coming up with strategies, tactics, and so on really increase the longevity of the game. The game still has ample bugs, bad ai pathing, and so on yet those bugs ended up making the game DEEPER, not shollower. The AI pathing and so on makes the game more challenging. However, many original SC fans are complaining that SC2 doesn't have these so the game is easier. I think the game is actually more challenging, but not because of the issues with the game.
Warcraft 3 doesn't need as high APM, but it requires more thinking because of how tactics and strategies are executed. A player with a good strategy but low APM can still beat a higher APM player if they're timing and strategy is better than someone who doesn't.
For example, the warcraft 3 player Space has an average of about 150-200 apm, yet he is one of the top undead players because of his ability with timing pushes and his excellent micro in battles.
A good way to compare the two games is that SC plays you against the game and the opponent, while WAR3 allows you to focus on what your opponent is doing.
This will draw a bunch of flame from SC players but whatever.
Oct 28, 2009
[Games] awesome stuff! and Windows 7
Many awesome games are coming out. Some I would like to talk about.
Game 1) New Monkey Island Game. I'll be installing it this Friday, though I probably won't get to it for a while as there are Halloween parties in which I shall take part of. However, I believe it shall continue being a great series, as it is funny and great stories.
Game 2) League of Legends. League of Legends is a free game that has just started open beta. It is based off of the stupidly popular "DotA" Warcraft 3 game, but is much better. First of all, Guinsoo, who origionally made the First dota for RoC is on the game, which means the character design and everything is pretty unique. While you still see some hero similarities of War3's DotA in the game, it is much more friendly to new people than the current War3 iteration. Did I mention that it's free?
The only problem I see is that the popularity will drop off when Starcraft 2 comes out. I don't mean that AoS players play RTS games, but I do mean that when SC2 comes out there will be an okay AoS for Sarcraft in say, about a month after release. Crappy AoSs will come out much, much earlier. Basically I hope the appeal won't fall out in favor for a game with a larger budget and a larger company.
Game 3) Assassins Creed 2
It seems that many people disliked or found the original Assassins Creed repetitive. While I can see their point, I don't think it should have received the butchered reviews that came with the game. I'm replaying the game myself and am enjoying it immensely. The only problem I have with it is that sneaking through the game is too slow and near the end their are too many guards looking for you.
Assassins Creed 2 I am really excited for, not for the extended game play, more in depth story, or the new mechanics, but that it's set in Italy. Hopefully I'll be able to play the game in Italian with English subtitles. Also, having gone to Italy, I really hope that we'll be able to run the rooftops or Arezzo. So far Florance is a confirmed place, so I don't think Arezzo is too big a stretch. We shall see.
Game 4) Starcraft 2
Starcraft 2 is also on every blizzard fanboy's game list. It looks pretty good, zerg are apparently STILL imba because of the queen's injection ability, and so on. The one thing I really hope this game will do is change the game enough so that new strategies will be devised, and that much of the old gameplay won't be seen the same way.
However, I think that the game will be much easier. Many of the reasons for high apm in starcraft games: small selection groups, a/patrol moving, stacking, worker shenanigans, bad pathing AI, no smart casting, etc. will be removed. Half the reason people needed to have 200+ apm to be C or better is because of all these gimmiks that you need to be able to pull off in a normal game. Many, if not all of these things will be removed. I think starcraft players will no longer be able to say that warcraft 3 is easy mode in comparison now that the gameplay has been really simplified.
As for Windows 7, I'd say it's better than Vista, still a bit worse than XP. This will change as they patch some issues for it though. This review is on an AMD/ATI computer. I also have it installed on an Intel/Nvidia computer, but I havn't used 7 at all on it.
-It does crash occasionally, or I should say programs that I run crash occasionally. This is because there isn't enough software support for windows 7 yet. While most all programs run fine on it (so far starcraft is the only problem, being all weird colored. In game works fine though) they can have a tendency to crash. This will change as it becomes a larger section of the PC market, and as windows team gets patches out.
-Battery life is extended from Vista. I get at least another half hour to an hour on power saver/balance mode.
-Boot times is MUCH faster. I think it is at least on par to mac, if not better.
-Instillation is pretty easy, if you do a clean install all your old files are put in a folder for you to save or delete. Hopefully the switched the DL file so that it's an ISO (disk image) instead of it's original version. When I downloaded it, I had to:
1) unpackage file
2) use a command line to turn files into an ISO file
3) burn to a disk or USB drive
Not too difficult, but time consuming.
I think that's it for now. I would add links and stuff but I'm too lazy at the moment.
Game 1) New Monkey Island Game. I'll be installing it this Friday, though I probably won't get to it for a while as there are Halloween parties in which I shall take part of. However, I believe it shall continue being a great series, as it is funny and great stories.
Game 2) League of Legends. League of Legends is a free game that has just started open beta. It is based off of the stupidly popular "DotA" Warcraft 3 game, but is much better. First of all, Guinsoo, who origionally made the First dota for RoC is on the game, which means the character design and everything is pretty unique. While you still see some hero similarities of War3's DotA in the game, it is much more friendly to new people than the current War3 iteration. Did I mention that it's free?
The only problem I see is that the popularity will drop off when Starcraft 2 comes out. I don't mean that AoS players play RTS games, but I do mean that when SC2 comes out there will be an okay AoS for Sarcraft in say, about a month after release. Crappy AoSs will come out much, much earlier. Basically I hope the appeal won't fall out in favor for a game with a larger budget and a larger company.
Game 3) Assassins Creed 2
It seems that many people disliked or found the original Assassins Creed repetitive. While I can see their point, I don't think it should have received the butchered reviews that came with the game. I'm replaying the game myself and am enjoying it immensely. The only problem I have with it is that sneaking through the game is too slow and near the end their are too many guards looking for you.
Assassins Creed 2 I am really excited for, not for the extended game play, more in depth story, or the new mechanics, but that it's set in Italy. Hopefully I'll be able to play the game in Italian with English subtitles. Also, having gone to Italy, I really hope that we'll be able to run the rooftops or Arezzo. So far Florance is a confirmed place, so I don't think Arezzo is too big a stretch. We shall see.
Game 4) Starcraft 2
Starcraft 2 is also on every blizzard fanboy's game list. It looks pretty good, zerg are apparently STILL imba because of the queen's injection ability, and so on. The one thing I really hope this game will do is change the game enough so that new strategies will be devised, and that much of the old gameplay won't be seen the same way.
However, I think that the game will be much easier. Many of the reasons for high apm in starcraft games: small selection groups, a/patrol moving, stacking, worker shenanigans, bad pathing AI, no smart casting, etc. will be removed. Half the reason people needed to have 200+ apm to be C or better is because of all these gimmiks that you need to be able to pull off in a normal game. Many, if not all of these things will be removed. I think starcraft players will no longer be able to say that warcraft 3 is easy mode in comparison now that the gameplay has been really simplified.
As for Windows 7, I'd say it's better than Vista, still a bit worse than XP. This will change as they patch some issues for it though. This review is on an AMD/ATI computer. I also have it installed on an Intel/Nvidia computer, but I havn't used 7 at all on it.
-It does crash occasionally, or I should say programs that I run crash occasionally. This is because there isn't enough software support for windows 7 yet. While most all programs run fine on it (so far starcraft is the only problem, being all weird colored. In game works fine though) they can have a tendency to crash. This will change as it becomes a larger section of the PC market, and as windows team gets patches out.
-Battery life is extended from Vista. I get at least another half hour to an hour on power saver/balance mode.
-Boot times is MUCH faster. I think it is at least on par to mac, if not better.
-Instillation is pretty easy, if you do a clean install all your old files are put in a folder for you to save or delete. Hopefully the switched the DL file so that it's an ISO (disk image) instead of it's original version. When I downloaded it, I had to:
1) unpackage file
2) use a command line to turn files into an ISO file
3) burn to a disk or USB drive
Not too difficult, but time consuming.
I think that's it for now. I would add links and stuff but I'm too lazy at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)