This is a question out of curiosity about the game, pardon me if it's too obvious or something. I had difficulty looking for exactly what I wanted to ask, but I will try to be clear about this question.
From what I understand so far, the limitation on the total number of units that can be selected in SCBW is now considered integral to the way the game plays and its strategies. But is this because of how the game evolved based on this limitation, or has it become a holy element after the strategies formed and became established?
Let's say, if the unit selection limit was raised (not much, maybe 16 or 20), it is obvious that some strategies would be nullified while others would come up, but would that break something about how the game is played? Could it actually be harmful? And what about raising the limit all the way up to something like a modern RTS game?
Saying that unit selection cap is integral to bw is not completely true imo. Though it is certainly a contributing factor as to why there aren't many BW MSL/OSL champions with APM far below 250.
My first thought is that it'd help zerg players since going mass ling/hydra type play would become a bit easier, perhaps some play styles like SK Terran TvZ would become easier since it also involves a whole lot of units (mass marine/medic with vessels is SK Terran in a nutshell). Zerg could also stack even more mutas in a single control group, toss could stack even more sairs, etc.
I'm definitely against changing or updating bw. And I don't think Blizzard will make any changes. Higher/unlimited unit selection would reduce the amount of APM required to accomplish certain tasks. Late game army positioning would be made much easier. This comes into play in all match-ups.
It would help my play a lot, as late game large armies I often have difficulty controlling-in part due to the unit selection cap.
I could explain you in detail what the downsides of larger selection groups are and could write a wall of text, but I think a visual explanation is much more proficient to give you a deeper understanding of the problem.
So, take a look on this video:
This is a video of JaeDong during his prime and him microing two muta groups at once (not many, even pro gamer, zerg could replicate this). This is the damage output of 22 mutas in two seperate stacks. It appears to be totally OP and it might be logical to think it would be, but it is incredibly hard to micro like that. It is by no means an easy feat to perform such a micromanagement.
Now if you increase the selection limit to 24, EVERY zerg player could do that. And whilst in theory you could group up 24 marines and hence snipe out Mutas way easier, it would definitly shift the balance one way or the other.
And now realize that Mutalisk micro vs M&M is just a very small part of the game. There are several other occasions that could show you how an increase of the selection limit would change the game. And why change a running system?
i hate reading these "what if" posts on mechanics because they always hint towards "what if we just make the game easier" and "it won't do any real harm"
the mechanical difficulties imbedded in the game are a large factor in how games are played. there's so many brilliant strategies and amazing games in BW because of the limiting factors that players are able to contend with and abuse.
On May 05 2013 05:50 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
An important part of BW's gameplay and general balance at all levels is the the way that cheap, low supply core units don't scale in anywhere near a 1:1 way in large numbers. As supply goes up and your army becomes increasingly unwieldy, taking up more and more of your time to move around and control group, you're getting less and less out of each successive unit used in a mass. This was both a consideration for balance (allowing cracklings to be so ridiculous and still be balanced for example, since zerglings are the unit probably most affected by the selection limit), as well as an omnipresent tactical consideration for the development of strategies. They can't be separated.
You're asking about high level play (and of course it would affect it), but more than anything this would disrupt BW at more casual levels where players don't have the APM to use large armies anywhere near as effectively as high-level players have learned how to over the years. It's always been a core part of the game.
To answer your question concisely: yes, changing the selection limit, even by a little bit, would drastically influence the game. Whether or not strategies could evolve out of a larger unit selection while still retaining relative balance is unknown, it would "break" the game. That's what makes it confusing when people ask about core mechanics of Brood War...why would you change something if it already works?
On August 28 2017 06:10 chrisolo wrote: I could explain you in detail what the downsides of larger selection groups are and could write a wall of text, but I think a visual explanation is much more proficient to give you a deeper understanding of the problem.
This is a video of JaeDong during his prime and him microing two muta groups at once (not many, even pro gamer, zerg could replicate this). This is the damage output of 22 mutas in two seperate stacks. It appears to be totally OP and it might be logical to think it would be, but it is incredibly hard to micro like that. It is by no means an easy feat to perform such a micromanagement.
Now if you increase the selection limit to 24, EVERY zerg player could do that. And whilst in theory you could group up 24 marines and hence snipe out Mutas way easier, it would definitly shift the balance one way or the other.
And now realize that Mutalisk micro vs M&M is just a very small part of the game. There are several other occasions that could show you how an increase of the selection limit would change the game. And why change a running system?
Very well written. I still remember the first time I watched that video. The comments section is hilarious.
Thanks for all the great answers. The more I understand, the more interesting the game becomes
On August 28 2017 06:06 Jonoman92 wrote: I'm definitely against changing or updating bw. And I don't think Blizzard will make any changes.
On August 28 2017 06:51 CHEONSOYUN wrote: i hate reading these "what if" posts on mechanics because they always hint towards "what if we just make the game easier" and "it won't do any real harm"
On August 28 2017 10:50 EsportsJohn wrote: To answer your question concisely: yes, changing the selection limit, even by a little bit, would drastically influence the game. Whether or not strategies could evolve out of a larger unit selection while still retaining relative balance is unknown, it would "break" the game. That's what makes it confusing when people ask about core mechanics of Brood War...why would you change something if it already works?
I did not mean to imply that I wanted the unit limit to be raised, or in fact, any other changes to be made to SCBW. I would never advocate any such changes for a game that has been played at high levels for so long, and especially since my understanding and experience is very limited.
I just like learning about some of this stuff, and for me one of the ways to do so is to just ask. We can call it scrub-level theory-crafting
in case its also what prevents terran from totaly overkilling everything, imagine terran with perfect macro ... scary. and zerg with all units on one key ... scary
its like another skill to master that sc2 never had and all new games not have, the muscular training u need to be fast enough to do it and u can NEVER be fast enough.
flash isnt fast enough for everything so there is always a thing u can be faster u can do better
its this extra part of train this mechanical macro power u need to learn that balances and also makes the game so much harder to master
Short answer: The skill level deflates and becomes unsaturated. I see OP's point in that it will just scramble the strategies and it will reach equilibrium again, but it must be considered that the overall quality of gameplay will decrease if everyone is automatically able to execute certain things without practicing it.
sc1 is a platoons based game, sc2 is a blob based game.
12 units is a nice number for a platoon, I love platoons, I love ww2 movies.
the 12 USL along with the pathing avoid the horrify and disgusting sc2 death-ball and allow for more micro management that can be mastered further to infinity.
On August 28 2017 06:10 chrisolo wrote: I could explain you in detail what the downsides of larger selection groups are and could write a wall of text, but I think a visual explanation is much more proficient to give you a deeper understanding of the problem.
This is a video of JaeDong during his prime and him microing two muta groups at once (not many, even pro gamer, zerg could replicate this). This is the damage output of 22 mutas in two seperate stacks. It appears to be totally OP and it might be logical to think it would be, but it is incredibly hard to micro like that. It is by no means an easy feat to perform such a micromanagement.
Now if you increase the selection limit to 24, EVERY zerg player could do that. And whilst in theory you could group up 24 marines and hence snipe out Mutas way easier, it would definitly shift the balance one way or the other.
And now realize that Mutalisk micro vs M&M is just a very small part of the game. There are several other occasions that could show you how an increase of the selection limit would change the game. And why change a running system?
Very well written. I still remember the first time I watched that video. The comments section is hilarious.
EPT
