|
On September 19 2012 02:11 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:02 Archybaldie wrote:There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists. So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files". Heres what i posted on the battlenet forums + Show Spoiler +Name: Micro-pulse reactor Type: Upgrade. For: Carrier, researched at the fleet beacon Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving. Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit. However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide. Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving. Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6606901263 There's no need to turn microbility into an upgrade anymore than turning magic boxing or unit splitting into an upgrade. If the issue is 'little known' the solution is quite simple. Blizzard already has a bunch of training maps designed to teach newbies the fundamentals of SC2. They just need to add in a series of scenarios entitled "Cool Micro Tricks" or something (assuming they add a bunch more of this sort of microbility back in). Have helpful text or voice over explaining how to do it. Easy, simple, done. If the newbie can't be bothered, that's on them.
That is entirely a very fair point. (just to clarify though the re-targeting should be in as a default its just the interceptors staying out that i was suggesting to possibly be an upgrade)
The main reason i suggested this is going by blizzards design policy they seem to be trying to make things "very accessable" to lower levels. The thought process behind it was with an upgrade it would give us what we want, But keep it as something "very accessable" to lower levels.
Also thinking of alternative ways it could be implimented like possibly having it as a toggle (similar to seige) instead of keeping it moving to keep the interceptors out could add some other dynamics to the way carriers would play. Like if you leave them out and they all get emp'd thus weakening the interceptors or stormed etc. This would seem to follow blizzards design policy too and possibly add some more dynamics to the unit.
Edit: It could be said that this would make it too easy to use carriers. But on the other hand you're presented a choice of do you leave your interceptors out for better burst damage. Or do you keep them protected from things like thor splash/emp's Which could in turn increase the difficulty of using carriers slightly.
But anyway i think we all agree that the micro changes to the carrier in whatever form they come are needed. (I love the carrier so much im glad its currently back in)
I just like thinking outside the box! but it can be said that i go way too far outside the box lol. (i should probabaly go lay down or something im way to overly excited at the moment lol)
|
On September 19 2012 02:11 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:02 Archybaldie wrote:There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists. So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files". Heres what i posted on the battlenet forums + Show Spoiler +Name: Micro-pulse reactor Type: Upgrade. For: Carrier, researched at the fleet beacon Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving. Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit. However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide. Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving. Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6606901263 There's no need to turn microbility into an upgrade anymore than turning magic boxing or unit splitting into an upgrade. If the issue is 'little known' the solution is quite simple. Blizzard already has a bunch of training maps designed to teach newbies the fundamentals of SC2. They just need to add in a series of scenarios entitled "Cool Micro Tricks" or something (assuming they add a bunch more of this sort of microbility back in). Have helpful text or voice over explaining how to do it. Easy, simple, done. If the newbie can't be bothered, that's on them.
May I but-in this conversation a bit with a thought regarding the Carrier upgrades.
I agree, microbility should not go into an upgrade. If BW micro for Carriers makes it into HOTS, it should be there by default.
If there was an upgrade for the Carrier/Interceptor, I think it should be bonus damage to shields (not too much, maybe just +1 or +2 damage affecting shields only). Spicing up the PvP matchup without changing anyhting for PvT or PvZ. This might make them a counter to mass Colossi in the stargate tech path, while not making them too overpowered against everything and become the new Colossus 2.0.
Call it the "Field-phasic Armaments" upgrade or something.
|
I think the only reason that this isn't in sc2 is because blizz wants to avoid micro "tricks". Stutter-step and magic box ect. are simple to understand even though they can be difficult to do. This is more of a unit specific mechanic and many players might ask "why does it work like that?"
This is just my theory on why blizz didn't include it but I totally agree with mr.tyler and everyone else.
|
On September 18 2012 06:24 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 05:07 niteReloaded wrote:On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game. See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind. I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks." Why does everybody hate on Browder and Blizzard in threads like these? Blizzard gains nothing by making a fundamentally competitive game casual friendly, so that doesn't work. Browder has no reason to make a bad game, and he IS a high up in Blizzard, so he has at least an above average brain. That means that he makes non-retarded decisions based on the knowledge he has on hand at the time of the decision being made. Cool down for a bit and seriously put yourself in his shoes before you judge him so harshly. Most of us, in his place in his experiences, would have made a lot of the same decisions.
You just said that:
1) he has no motivation to make a casual friendly game by lowering skill cap
2) he has no reason to make a bad game
and yet he:
1) made a casual friendly game while lowering skill cap
2) made a bad game
which enforces my claim that he's incompetent.
I understand that most people would've made similar decisions, but at the same time I'm 99% sure I would've made a better game if I was in charge. And I can list like 10 people from TL who would also do a better job than Browder.
BroodWar isn't such a terribly deep game to understand. Dustin Browder either wasn't interested enough to try to grasp the magic of it (to be able to re-create it), or he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the real essence of BW's magic.
|
Thank you for making this video and explaining BW mechanics to the SC2 community. I know this probably took a long time to put together and I don't want to sound ungrateful, but do you think you could discuss corsair micro vs phoenix "micro" and the tendency for air units to "drift" in BW.
This was an important part of the mutalisk patrol move micro which has been completely removed in SC2, and the corsair vs mutalisk micro was some of the most tense and exciting things about pro BW games. I think this advances your discussion because (I hope I'm not alone here) I found the corsair micro to be more challenging than muta micro, but the corsair micro was more rewarding when done over a cannon for example. Mutas were also able to dart in, unload and dart out which made muta stacking and one shotting marines very exciting to watch, but this is almost completely absent in SC2 because mutas need to stop to fire and don't "drift" or maintain speed while being microed.
And I miss Chinese triangle vs patrol move debates cropping up everywhere, but I don't know if it's nearly as important without scourge.
|
Acdtually I think the issue with interceptors staying out is more lack of visibility.
It has been an issue in the past(visibility or marines behind thors was once cited by DB).
If instead of flying under the carrier the interceptors would instead circle in their cloudformation around the carrier(without attacking of course), it would be very visible to spectators and the enemy. It could even create another possibility: caster units sneaking up on carriers and destroying interceptors with fungal/storm.
edit:
Isn´t the new engine the reason why you can micro banshees against marines by shooting backwards manually? Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t banshee micro going to suffer if you introduce everything needed for moving shot again?
I am beginning to get sick of this whole "the colossus is bad, therefore all of SC2 is bad" Does nobody like the baneling? Or the queen? Don´t destructible rocks give the player who builds units early on an advantage?
Rocks may have been used gimmicky at release, but mapmakers use them on pretty much every map in ladder and torunament mappools.
Don´t act like it´s all bad now.
|
muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong
|
On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote:
muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong
muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing
|
Start a petition for gingerbread carriers XD
|
If anyone is still interested, I might have successfully created a decent approximation of the 'continuous deployment' micro ability purely within the data editor. I don't know all the details of how this particular micro feature worked, but here is how my attempt goes:
- when you issue an attack command from range 8 or less, a new button will light up on your carrier's command card (continuous deployment - hotkeyed to D)
- as long as the carrier does not stop moving, the button will stay lit. But if you stop, it goes grey. Issuing a new attack command while the interceptors are out will relight the button if you are within range 8
- pressing D will recall your interceptors. But if you attempt to attack from between range 14 and 8, all 8 interceptors will be deployed almost instantly at the target
- but attempting to attack from within 8 range causes the carrier to launch interceptors normally
- you are still able to switch targets from within leash range for the deployed interceptors
Once my SC2 client finishes patching, I'll update Bizarro Carrier with my newest attempt at this.
I don't have the ability to make videos or upload to youtube, but if this actually works, and anyone wishes to do so, feel free.
|
On September 19 2012 07:10 Mataza wrote:
Acdtually I think the issue with interceptors staying out is more lack of visibility.
It has been an issue in the past(visibility or marines behind thors was once cited by DB).
If instead of flying under the carrier the interceptors would instead circle in their cloudformation around the carrier(without attacking of course), it would be very visible to spectators and the enemy. It could even create another possibility: caster units sneaking up on carriers and destroying interceptors with fungal/storm.
edit:
Isn´t the new engine the reason why you can micro banshees against marines by shooting backwards manually? Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t banshee micro going to suffer if you introduce everything needed for moving shot again?
I am beginning to get sick of this whole "the colossus is bad, therefore all of SC2 is bad" Does nobody like the baneling? Or the queen? Don´t destructible rocks give the player who builds units early on an advantage?
Rocks may have been used gimmicky at release, but mapmakers use them on pretty much every map in ladder and torunament mappools.
Don´t act like it´s all bad now.
I agree, too many people just want to hate and rant without thinking first and looking how great the game actually is, it is just that most people are utterly nostalgic and wont let anyone say a bad thing about their game ever, even if only saying that the new game is better.
|
On September 19 2012 07:39 EleanorRIgby wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote:
muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing
Thors nullified the advantage of BW style muta stacking. It spawned a new form of control in the form of magic box. To some extent it is micro but much less impressive for spectators and less generally useful.
The reality is more nuanced of course. Thors alone didn't kill muta stacking. Terran in BW had an arguably more powerful anti muta aoe spell: irradiate. Muta stacking was strong until the Terran teched to science vessels. Interestingly, the 'hard counter' to muta stacking could be partially countered in turn by splitting your mutas after irradiate was cast, a micro intensive task that became harder with more mutas and more vessels around. I would never expect this level of depth from SC2 though.
That aside, it was early thors which killed muta stacking. In BW there was a window before science vessals when muta stacking was effective. In SC2, thors appear so early that the window is small to non existent.
Did Browder understand all this when he removed muta stacking from the game? I don't see any reason to think so.
|
well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
|
On September 19 2012 10:05 j.k.l wrote:
well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
You need to start somwhere.
|
On September 19 2012 10:05 j.k.l wrote:
well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
If you focus on one unit at a time it is much more clear and focused. This thread would be very confusing if he went through a multitude of units and how each should be changed. He decided to focus on one single unit that he thought could be fixed in a dramatic fashion. Whether you agree or disagree with his points, it makes absolute sense that he should focus on one single unit.
It also makes sense that this thread is about a unit from his own race. Since he was Protoss in BW and SC2 he has used their units many more times than someone who plays another race. I would much rather hear about Carrier Micro from a Protoss player rather than a Zerg player (Though I would also be interested in hearing how the other races' players felt when facing them.)
|
If there's a single component that needs to be incorporated it's target switching within leash range. Without that, leash range is all but pointless, and the carrier's attack is just a very, very complicated animation compared to other units. And this wouldn't be a bug exploit because the carrier already moves out of range of enemies while the interceptors stay in range. This fix just makes it not-useless because it can STAY out of range, just like a tank, brood lord, or colossus.
Like many on here, I was amazed at the idea of instantaneous launch being micro-based vs research based. It's the best example I've seen yet of what makes a good BW mechanic. I wasn't a BW competitive player, and I appreciate that attack, hold, and patrol don't produce wildly different results in SCII. However, I agree with some other posters that micro-based glitches from BW can be incorporated as micro-based abilities in SCII. And none of it needs to be a mystery to new players given the extensive tooltips, tutorials, and achievements that exist in SCII.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 10:00 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:39 EleanorRIgby wrote:On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote:
muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing Thors nullified the advantage of BW style muta stacking. It spawned a new form of control in the form of magic box. To some extent it is micro but much less impressive for spectators and less generally useful. The reality is more nuanced of course. Thors alone didn't kill muta stacking. Terran in BW had an arguably more powerful anti muta aoe spell: irradiate. Muta stacking was strong until the Terran teched to science vessels. Interestingly, the 'hard counter' to muta stacking could be partially countered in turn by splitting your mutas after irradiate was cast, a micro intensive task that became harder with more mutas and more vessels around. I would never expect this level of depth from SC2 though. That aside, it was early thors which killed muta stacking. In BW there was a window before science vessals when muta stacking was effective. In SC2, thors appear so early that the window is small to non existent. Did Browder understand all this when he removed muta stacking from the game? I don't see any reason to think so.
Thors/vessels have nothing to do with the difference between Sc1 and Sc2 mutas. Sc1 mutas can be stacked by grouping 1 stationary unit in your muta control group, they can shoot while moving with patrol method and Chinese triangle method, they can spread shot with hold position, etc. there are a lot of tricks.
Sc2 mutas you can just position like any other unit there's really nothing difficult about controlling them well. Browder didn't necessarily take muta micro away from the game, it just was never added to begin with.
|
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing
Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
-goswser
HOLY CRAP!!!
|
On September 19 2012 12:22 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing
Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?) -goswserHOLY CRAP!!!
Did....Did Nony just successfully rescued BW Carriers from the clutches of Blizzard?
:O
Entaro Nony!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
