EPTOverkill is Anti-Deathball - Page 4
| Blogs > Falling |
|
jadeo
Sweden18 Posts
| ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8910 Posts
i think this will also solve terran woes in the sense that they will be forced to lay deeper siege lines - something i've always felt will help them VS infestor play. deeper tank lines means that marines can continue to fall back while zerglings and festors are taking damage from the deeper siege line. if the zerg is a-moving, he clumps on a single tank and continues to take nearly free damage (minus the one tank being targeted by the ling ball). it will force more control out of the zerg player and potentially end the notion that zerg requires next to no micro in a big engagement. | ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
What you are essentially asking is how do you balance skill. And really you can't except to make sure that all sides also have things they can be skillful at. It moves the mentality away from muta's were terrible in that battle, they need a greater buff vs light or armoured to mutas were terrible in that battle, I needed to control them better. (Incidentally, Thor vs Muta is a rather mundane example of skill compared to muta control in the past. It was simply a useful example for my promote behaviour/ allow response argument.) That's also why I can't entirely agree with avilo's statement. Supply is certainly part of what makes tanks difficult to mass, but simply dropping the supply cost doesn't increase cool unit interactions. There is just more tanks doing more or less the same thing. And for the bronze league, I don't know if most of the fancy tricks would help them. Macro is still ridiculously powerful in SC2- especially with the rate of income and macro mechanics. They would still have better success winning with the most units the fastest. So if the units are balanced around how well they can be used skillfully, they'll still work fine in the lower leagues a-moving around- you just have to make lots of them. And if they can figure out how to win with the most units the fastest in addition to the extra skill mastery, chances are they're going to be promoted. Balancing around skill seems like a nightmare because the developers have less control (+15 light damage and the match-ups will swing back to being balanced.) But it is better because it puts balance more into the players' control on how well you played. That does assume that all sides have more skill based micro with their units (the movement changes would be for everyone of course.) But having the RTS equivalent of skill shot vs skill shot is not a bad problem to have. And that's why people are pushing for things like Carrier micro- it's more skill based unit attacks that help the player with the better control. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
This and NonY's Carrier Video make me think that reworking some AI in HotS would be really beneficial. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19286 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
To a certain extent you can already see the pull down laterally and a move across to get a spread function. However, its a little harder to do and involves some manual shifting around, so its quite different. If anything I think the AI clumping makes the game harder in a certain way - you fight the AI and try to make it do what you want it to do and not what it wants to do itself. Though this isn't as big a deal at the moment because the splash doesnt punish it in quite the same way. If anything, making the tanks able to overkill and keeping the clumping would increase the skill required to engage tanks substantially. After all, you would need to put more effort into keeping the units apart. | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
depressing the reddit community is so ridiculously hostile towards these threads (atleast this is actual. good. game discussion.) | ||
|
Hayl_Storm
The Shire633 Posts
10/10 | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
Also I think redesigning or removing the Colossus is at least at important as that stuff you mentioned because that is a very toxic unit concept to the idea of dynamic battles with interesting unit positioning, regardless of how you change the numbers on it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
As for the Colossus, it's kinda a chicken and egg problem. Collosus is problematic to Terran positioning, but if people don't understand what mech positional play is, I'm not necessarily sure they will see how harmful the Collosus is to it. But you can definitely find my posts throughout TL adamantly arguing to change the collosus to something else. Overkill -> screens of blue goo + hydra corpses were the best. And this is rather the goal in my mind. Because this is immensely satisfying to pros and newbs alike. The pro's will be able to make use of the subtlies of mech play, but low level players will get tank lines that will shell the enemy lines to pieces. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
SEA KarMa
Australia452 Posts
On September 25 2012 02:00 Indrium wrote: Please don't. I enjoy this. As I mostly play PVT tanks aren't featured much, but I enjoyed the matchup in BW when it was more mech play. Do you think no overkill is one of the reasons mech isn't viable TVP, or is that just a bunch of other factors? Both. Mech is not viable in PvT for a bunch of reasons. Tanks are not as strong as mentioned. We don't have a key feature in brood war, the mine, which delayed the Protoss significantly. Hellions are decent against zealots like vultures, but are horrendous against stalkers and pretty much everything else. Vultures in brood war in sufficient numbers could take down goons with mines and such, but hellions tickle stalkers comparatively. There are now many units that just plain counter the tank, like immortals, charge zealots, archons, etc. Tank damage got nerfed as well because of no overkill, and so does even worse against the protoss army. Colossus can take many siege tank shots, unlike the brood war counterpart, the reaver. Tanks are harder to produce, more gas and more supply. Probably over 10 more reasons, but I just can't name them off the top of my head. | ||
|
Salomonster
Sweden67 Posts
I'm a zerg player and I have been thinking along theese lines about the siege tank for quite a long time. the way it works today doesn't really feel logical, and I always thought it would be a more interesting unit if it would be more powerful and sacrifice more. Your post is just a much better way of describing what I've already been thinking about. I think a change like this also would give bio/mech more dimensions. I didn't play BW so I have no experience with how the siege tank worked back then, but what I have seen from BW the maps was alot different. How do you think a change like this would work on the current map pool, or just on maps designed by todays standards? I'm mainly thinking about BW maps seemed alot mor open spaced than curren sc2 maps, and that elevations seems more common in sc2. (I might be totally wrong about that) wouldn't this type of mechanic be very powerful especially in the early midgames on maps with lots of chokes and few attack paths? I would really like to hear some oppinions about this. | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
On September 26 2012 14:31 neobowman wrote: I'll be the devil's advocate here. Tanks as far as I know are the only units with smart targetting. However, rarely in Wings of Liberty do you see a mass of tanks large enough to worry about clumping. It's generally just bio with tank support. In HOTS you have seen some levels of mass tanks but everyone's experimenting and not actually going for serious builds so its not yet known if that many tanks is actually viable. If you have only 1 to 5 tanks though, it's not going to be as important. shrug, tanks being 3 food over 2 food is a pretty big deal in how many you can make. im amazed at sc2 when both players max in 11 minutes and have tiny, insignificant armies. it's also why i feel like carriers have a hard time finding their place. bw players had a REALLY hard time maxing. like in all my watching of BW i can't think of many games where both players max. only time i really see it, is when one player is ahead but can't end it. so he just macros. so both players max in 11 minutes and then what, how to build carriers. you have to sac your army to build them, but then you're vulnerable for quite awhile. | ||
|
MrF
United States320 Posts
| ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
Thanks for the write-up. Maybe if Blizzard sees this, they might re-consider their approach to the game.. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
On September 27 2012 00:29 MrF wrote: I don't quite know how to respond to this, I don't really like this idea, tanks are fine as they are. They game is fun to watch and play and I believe that while composition is important control and positional strategy are still the major factors in winning games. I don't see the boring death-ball centric games that (according to some) apparently plague the pro-scene, I see exiting nail biting games with interesting strategy choices and great unit control, positional battles where who gets the better engagement can change the tide of a game. I don't think changing the tanks as you said would necessarily improve the game, what I know is that it would drastically change the balance of the game and the way you have to use tanks and I don't see a good reason to go through all that based on a hypothetical benefit that you think would be achieved. No offense and I hope I didn't sound harsh I just see no good reason to make massive changes to the game. I read you posts and understand your points, I just don't agree with them. You don't agree ? Sure, that's no problem. Now give arguments to support it. "I don't agree" isn't enoug. Why do you not agree ? | ||
|
kineSiS-
Korea (South)1068 Posts
On September 24 2012 08:17 HawaiianPig wrote: Love these blogs, they explain some of the finer points of what made mech work in BW. ....But it's per se not "per say" Sadly, we didn't have certain units that made Mech an unviable strategy like immortals and the lack of dark swarm is also problematic. | ||
| ||
