EPTtbh it unleashed a new pool of ideas from this knowledge and try to incorporate it into something new or old. lol
Carrier Micro - Page 25
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
tbh it unleashed a new pool of ideas from this knowledge and try to incorporate it into something new or old. lol | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Incanus
Canada695 Posts
| ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
| ||
|
dream-_-
United States1857 Posts
| ||
|
nitdkim
1264 Posts
| ||
|
hatespam
Romania161 Posts
| ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On September 19 2012 12:04 Sinensis wrote: 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. You missed my point. I was referring specifically to muta stacking and argued that it isn't a useful technique in SC2, even if it did exist. I give Browder the benefit of the doubt and assume he took an active decision to exclude it. I hope he at least knew about it because unlike carrier micro tricks, muta stacking was more obvious and vocally discussed as well. BW style muta stacking has been successfully recreated in the map editor so it was available to Blizzard developers: | ||
|
Warfare
Austria17 Posts
On the other hand, i dont think muta stacking ( like in BW ) should have a place in SC2. Mutas are microintense already and it would just feel "awkward" in SC2 i guess EDIT: Another thought i had when i saw the carrier video. There was no "patrol" in BW right? So woudnt this command make the carrier overpowered? Get out all your interceptors and then give a patrol command. Instant deployment EVERY time. Maybe interceptors should have an amount of energy that decreases when they are outside the carrier. Like FUEL. and you HAVE to get them back in from time to time for making them work | ||
|
ArtyK
France3143 Posts
You pretty much say everything about what the carrier needs in sc2 Blizzard y u make tassadar weak  | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1976 Posts
| ||
|
wcr.4fun
Belgium686 Posts
On September 19 2012 19:29 nitdkim wrote: there can be a video of every single unit in bw about their intricate micro... Please this... On September 19 2012 22:00 TaShadan wrote: muta stacking micro would be imba with unlimited selection. except there will be stronger anti air splash units (with more splash damage) The thord kinda singlehandedly destroys muta stacking. But if you could stack your mutas and marines weren't so densely grouped, you wouldn't have to make more than 11 mutalisks. And if you stack too many, you're losing waaaaayyy too much damage per shot. | ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
It becomes kinda cool for a while, till it's just as standard as stutter stepping for pros, and then they have to consider balance rammifications. In SC1 doing too much of any micro would always lead you to eventually slip in your macro, in SC2 it would take a whole lot more so eventually they have to consider if this new possible range 12 Carrier is balanced since pros will be able to play almost like they were range 12. It probably isn't... Could they balance a carrier that has 12 range in the hands of any pros? Probably. They could lower the interceptor dps, lower it's health, increase the cost... I don't think I would. Iconic Starcraft unit or not. I'm all for leaving it in the game as a more or less neutered unit people can throw in like manner Mules though without the 12 range targeting. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On September 19 2012 22:10 wcr.4fun wrote: Please this... The thord kinda singlehandedly destroys muta stacking. But if you could stack your mutas and marines weren't so densely grouped, you wouldn't have to make more than 11 mutalisks. And if you stack too many, you're losing waaaaayyy too much damage per shot. In essence, it adds another dimension of optional plays that you have to weigh out the risks and the reward to determine the action that you'll make. A classic instance would be Mutalisks vs Archons where it is much more efficient to spread the flock than to clump them. So it is up the the opposition to fondle around in positioning themselves properly to deflects damage from happening. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On September 19 2012 19:29 nitdkim wrote: there can be a video of every single unit in bw about their intricate micro... Can the next one be moving shot? Please Nony save the moving shot!!! | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 19 2012 22:28 Furycrab wrote: It leads to unintuitive micro decisions where say... You'll fire on your own unit/building in order to then order your interceptors to go pick on a Viking at range 12. It becomes kinda cool for a while, till it's just as standard as stutter stepping for pros, and then they have to consider balance rammifications. In SC1 doing too much of any micro would always lead you to eventually slip in your macro, in SC2 it would take a whole lot more so eventually they have to consider if this new possible range 12 Carrier is balanced since pros will be able to play almost like they were range 12. It probably isn't... Could they balance a carrier that has 12 range in the hands of any pros? Probably. They could lower the interceptor dps, lower it's health, increase the cost... I don't think I would. Iconic Starcraft unit or not. I'm all for leaving it in the game as a more or less neutered unit people can throw in like manner Mules though without the 12 range targeting. The carrier was so bad they considered removing it. It would be ridiculous if the only changes required to make it viable were this, I don't think any nerfing is necessary. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 19 2012 23:18 sVnteen wrote: ? instant deployment? how are you ever gonna beat a big carrier army then? There already is an upgrade to do this. People are extremely overstating the effects these changes will have. At most it will make the carrier viable. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Glad to hear Blizzard is listening, though I can't blame them for putting those ideas on the shelf for now. Revisiting WoL units is a pandora's box that they don't want to open right now, even with the carrier. I am sure they would love to do it, but the brand new, untested HotS units need our attention right now. After all, they only have so many people on deck to work on this stuff. But the day of Carrier 2.0, now with elite pilots, is to come. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
as for Muta stacking...the issue was the same issue as with Viking Flowers, which is that it makes it impossible to accurately scout the enemy force. Is that 3 mutas about to harass your base, or 20? SC2 already has a bit of an issue with things being "coinflippy", and making it harder to scout will only increase that. | ||
| ||
