EPTCarrier Micro - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
| ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
Great video made me excited though with the instant release of the interceptors you could potentially see some amazing fungal plays against interceptors. | ||
|
WArped
United Kingdom4845 Posts
Excellent video Tyler, I hope they see it. It's a perfect opportunity to test how the BW carrier would work in SC2 HotS, like you mentioned. | ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
On September 17 2012 07:20 HawaiianPig wrote: Nuances like these made Brood War what it is... I feel these kinds of skills are almost entirely missing from SC2... Too me this isn't just about carrier micro, but about an approach to unit design. Subtleties like this are both exciting and skillful. They don't affect lower level players, yet add complexity to the higher level. Complexity is a good thing. I don't know if Blizzard knows that... I'd be surprised if Blizzard even understands the importance of this kind of thing let alone implements it... One can hope though... Exactly this, the unit design is more superficial in many ways in SC2 | ||
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
I feel like this is the best time for the pro gaming community, as a whole, to be heard and talk to Blizzard as much as possible when it comes to the design of sc2. Since appearently you guys have a pro only forum in the hots battlenet forums (read it somewhere on TL), i think the full pro gaming community, each and every progamer in the beta, should be EXTREMELY vocal about this. Annoy the hell out of Browder and David Kim until they are convinced it is for the good to have amazing mechanics like these, and maybe, just maybe, stuff like reaver replacing the colossus (because let's face it, EVERYONE knows it would make a much better game), bw carriers, a proper unit to complement mech and make it the standard way to play terran. This is the best moment to do it, and the fact that blizzard listened to Grubby's idea on the Oracle and to all the complaints on the Warhound means itis possible they will isten; there is so much more that could be done to make SC2 a better competitive game and a worthy successor of BW but Blizzard will take a long time to admit the mistakes they made during the design process. edit: "I know Browder usually says "if you want BW, go play BW" notion in regards to the lurker and reaver" yeaaah but then you look at the swarm host, viper and widow mine, and really think that, for example, it might be possbile to change the colossus into something that has a glaring mobility weakness, has great synergy with a warp prism, is not a unit that's generally massed as a go to army composition, and is effective in both straight up fights and harassment, but only with great micro, if and only if the community, especially progamers, is vocal enough with them during the beta. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
But it is interesting that voidrays and carriers in sc2 get so much better if you attack single targets. If i engage Broodlords with carriers i basically assign 1 carrier to one broodlord/infestor and select them again to shift a movement command in leash range. Then you can hunt the targets to death and repeat it. (going to range 8 is risky though, but the mothership is perfect at diverting attention in addition to a few hts) Voidrays are the same if you want to charge on the opponent, you have to split them up first, so they gain their charge. It increases the damage output of the opponent at the start, but once charge is reached damages goes wild and turns the tide of battle. But hallucination (makes it easy to keep the charge) or building gateways with the prism works really good for precharging. Still BW mechanic for carriers was much more fun to use and this unleash of the interceptors looked really impressive (way better then they coming out all in line and if you know what you are doing you can fungal them all at once). I don't mind the sc2 version since i am perfectly fine with it (well i lack the 500 apm to kite corruptors perfectly), but the bw version would be way more entertaining for the viewers. | ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
On September 17 2012 08:16 Teoita wrote: Excellent post. I feel like this is the best time for the pro gaming community, as a whole, to be heard and talk to Blizzard as much as possible when it comes to the design of sc2. Since appearently you guys have a pro only forum in the hots battlenet forums (read it somewhere on TL), i think the full pro gaming community, each and every progamer in the beta, should be EXTREMELY vocal about this. Annoy the hell out of Browder and David Kim until they are convinced it is for the good to have amazing mechanics like these, and maybe, just maybe, stuff like reaver replacing the colossus (because let's face it, EVERYONE knows it would make a much better game), bw carriers, a proper unit to complement mech and make it the standard way to play terran. This is the best moment to do it, and the fact that blizzard listened to Grubby's idea on the Oracle and to all the complaints on the Warhound means itis possible they will isten; there is so much more that could be done to make SC2 a better competitive game and a worthy successor of BW but Blizzard will take a long time to admit the mistakes they made during the design process. edit: "I know Browder usually says "if you want BW, go play BW" notion in regards to the lurker and reaver" yeaaah but then you look at the swarm host, viper and widow mine, and really think that, for example, it might be possbile to change the colossus into something that has a glaring mobility weakness, has great synergy with a warp prism, is not a unit that's generally massed as a go to army composition, and is effective in both straight up fights and harassment, but only with great micro, if and only if the community, especially progamers, is vocal enough with them during the beta. If that is true, then we should also urge as many HotS beta testing pros s as possible to see this video and bring it forth to Blizzard. I didn´t know there was a Beta subforum for professionals. By removing the Warhound and reintroducing the carrier, Blizz devs have for the first time admitted to being wrong. If this is only going to happen in the HotS Beta, we should use this opportunity wisely. And spam this video to them. | ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
fenrysk
United States364 Posts
On September 17 2012 06:28 Liquid`NonY wrote: Target switching in leash zone is the most important. Being able to target individual interceptors is probably the lowest. That's really just meant to make carriers more difficult to use but it is kind of luck based and not the smoothest way to balance them. Enemies don't really want to do that either. A-move will always be the best method of killing interceptors (aside from possibly with abilities). 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. All these mechanics sort of tie in to each other. A lot of times the continuous deployment of interceptors isn't used for long stretches, but rather for very short stretches, like in a single battle when the carriers want to pull really far back for a moment and then go right back in. If they don't have continuous deployment of interceptors, they get significantly punished for leaving battles even for a split second. So in such a case, it's basically the same as target switching but with a very short retreat between targets. Related note: If there isn't continuous deployment, then you are significantly punishing the carrier user for leaving leash range. And when that wasn't a mistake, but rather a "tactical retreat", then the carrier starts to feel like a shitty unit again. If the carrier was too strong, I wouldn't want to see it balanced that way because it's just making it a frustrating unit. i really appreciate NoNy's followup response within the thread detailing specifically what changes, and in what priority, should be made. HawaiianPig's Subtleties like this are both exciting and skillful. They don't affect lower level players, yet add complexity to the higher level. is so true, and definitely what the carrier needs to see more screen time at the professional level. @NoNy I know from what you wrote above that the BW method would be most preferred because of the micro-intensity and focus required to maintain the deployed state on the interceptors, of course, but I'm curious though, NoNy, what other possible alternatives would be considered acceptable for achieving instant/continuous interceptor deployment while avoiding 'buggy behavior'? (an upgradable use-ability? graviton catapult upgrade changed to behave as permanent passive instant/continuous deployment? other?) | ||
|
TBone-
United States2309 Posts
| ||
|
BearStorm
United States795 Posts
 | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
anatidaus
Canada19 Posts
| ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
| ||
|
Dingobloo
Australia1903 Posts
But if the BW behavior comes at the expense of readability (for example it's almost impossible to tell if the interceptors are deployed or not when you're keeping the carrier moving both for the player and the opponent) or simplicity (attempting to explain to a player watching/playing for the first time that switching targets moves the carrier back into deploy range, except when it doesn't by issuing a move command) then you're going to have a VERY difficult time convincing them that this is worthwhile. They're much more likely to remove the unit and put in something where the player skill is more clear even if it's less mechanically interesting. Still I applaud your effort to be 100% clear when you say "reintroduce the BW behavior". | ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
Tyler you are a boss. I would have liked to have him as the main designer for SC2 haha, that would have made a great game I'm sure. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
If it's broken after trying it, obviously other things need done but it at least needs to be attempted | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
The best part of this sort of thing is it flies right above the heads of newbs for gameplay. It doesn't break the game for them. If you don't want to learn it, you just a-move and it works like normal. But it's an awesome tool for pro's to use. It's also very visual, thus better for spectating. | ||
| ||
