EPTI do think that rethinking the mining system so fewer workers are effective per base is a good idea, as it would make map control more important. However that would require a reconstruction of the entire unit roster from the ground up, as the game right now is very much about "the composition of your one army" rather than spreading them out over an area. Especially all the units new to SC2 are pitiful, boring fighters that work as part of a single army. Blame Browder- he worked on C&C Red Alert 2 and Generals, and both of those games had this exact problem.
[D] What changes could help with death balls? - Page 8
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
I do think that rethinking the mining system so fewer workers are effective per base is a good idea, as it would make map control more important. However that would require a reconstruction of the entire unit roster from the ground up, as the game right now is very much about "the composition of your one army" rather than spreading them out over an area. Especially all the units new to SC2 are pitiful, boring fighters that work as part of a single army. Blame Browder- he worked on C&C Red Alert 2 and Generals, and both of those games had this exact problem. | ||
|
Prodigal
Canada35 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:04 GARcher wrote: A much easier fix would be to have only 1 geyser per base. This limits tech. At the moment you can have Banelings into infestors, Colossi into Archons, Cloaked Banshees into Marine Tank. Less gas would force players to make careful decisions about what tech they are going in. Also slower tech = more vulnerable to turtle and tech up and max out. This would drag out the early/midgame and have more skirmishes. Easier? You'd have to rebuild the entire meta because both t and p won't be able to compete with Z economically. My solution only effects engagements, which effects mid/late game compositions. Early game is untouched and fine | ||
|
winsonsonho
Korea (South)143 Posts
Nerfing range I think would promote positional play at the highest levels.. When half your ball can't attack, it is a waste keeping them in the back, you'd prefer to flank. Also, you can at least damage a larger ball with a smaller one. I also hate that collosus and toss' dependency on it. It feel it'll promote positional play too with toss if the colossus were slower. The ball would be less mobile.. I also hate its attack, I like the idea of giving it slight delay so it can be somewhat microed against and changing its aoe shape. It would probably then need a buff, I would hope that it could thus be made un-attackable by air-air(happiness). | ||
|
wcr.4fun
Belgium686 Posts
With the collussus I mean, not being able to walk over other units and infestor fungal root changed (removed?). | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada344 Posts
Ultimately people just wan to win, preferably without expending too much effort. All this "I hate deathballs" is just their way of trying to act superior because their deathball strat didn't work. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada344 Posts
Ultimately people just wan to win, preferably without expending too much effort. All this "I hate deathballs" is just their way of trying to act superior because their deathball strat didn't work. | ||
|
winsonsonho
Korea (South)143 Posts
On October 31 2012 02:36 YumYumGranola wrote: Meh I don't really buy that people ACTUALLY don't want deathballs, I just think its a trendy excuse when they lose while attempting to do the exact same thing. The one matchup which is least built on building a huge army and a-moving with it is TvT, and the epitome of positional play in that matchup is tank v tank battles, which based on my experiences on ladder is a lot of people's least favorite thing to do (explaining why 1 base all-ins TvT are so common). Any pro TvT game inevitably has hordes of people calling it dull and boring. Chances are if any deathball reduction strategies were implemented, the moment players starte to realize that they needed to pay constant attention to unit positioning they'd QQ. Ultimately people just wan to win, preferably without expending too much effort. All this "I hate deathballs" is just their way of trying to act superior because their deathball strat didn't work. I think you're missing an important point. At the highest level it's boring watching ball v ball play every game. Positional based play is more dynamic and hence more interesting and exciting to spectate. It takes more multi tasking, so obviously deathballs will still be used sub-pro level. But the point is that at the top level it allows players to show off their ability better. We surly want to see dynamic high level games and have the option to play a strong positional game? No? | ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
| ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
| ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
I copmpletely can’t understand 40% of people who voted for «Stronger positional units for better space control». What units do they have in mind? So much hated Colossus, sentries and infestors can very well fall into this category because fungal growth, beams and fields are great against Deathballs. Do they want more of them? 12-unit selection cap is ready solution which can be implemented very easily. In BW we didn’t have deathballs. Blizzard just need to do things which worked in BW. But I’m afraid their pride will not allow them to do this. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
On November 08 2012 19:04 MikeMM wrote: I copmpletely can’t understand 40% of people who voted for «Stronger positional units for better space control». What units do they have in mind? So much hated Colossus, sentries and infestors can very well fall into this category because fungal growth, beams and fields are great against Deathballs. Do they want more of them? I think people were thinking more about units like tanks and widow mines. Colossi may be made interesting if they slow them down and make them more micro-intensive. Investors IMHO are interesting units that just need a nerf. | ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
On November 09 2012 16:49 Alex1Sun wrote: I think people were thinking more about units like tanks and widow mines. Colossi may be made interesting if they slow them down and make them more micro-intensive. Investors IMHO are interesting units that just need a nerf. Yes, tanks do help in some extent. TvZ and TvT more often than not can produce interesting games. But that is being achieved only thanks to delay of 3-5 seconds while tanks move into and out of siedgemode. That is why T Deathball with tanks is not so mobile and it’s interesting to watch. But the same delay of 3-5 seconds in moving whole P or Z Deathball can easily be achieved if 12-unit selection cap is introduced in sc2. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11133 Posts
On November 09 2012 17:26 MikeMM wrote: Yes, tanks do help in some extent. TvZ and TvT more often than not can produce interesting games. But that is being achieved only thanks to delay of 3-5 seconds while tanks move into and out of siedgemode. That is why T Deathball with tanks is not so mobile and it’s interesting to watch. But the same delay of 3-5 seconds in moving whole P or Z Deathball can easily be achieved if 12-unit selection cap is introduced in sc2. Why does it have to be a 12-unit selection cap? An 8 unit or 6 unit selection cap would greatly increase the skill ceiling and discourage deathballs even more. | ||
|
AmericanPsycho
South Africa11 Posts
| ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
On November 09 2012 19:31 eviltomahawk wrote: Why does it have to be a 12-unit selection cap? An 8 unit or 6 unit selection cap would greatly increase the skill ceiling and discourage deathballs even more. Any cap not bigger than 12 will help to make the game more interessting to watch and harder to play. Someone also suggested cap based on supply. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 09 2012 17:26 MikeMM wrote: Yes, tanks do help in some extent. TvZ and TvT more often than not can produce interesting games. But that is being achieved only thanks to delay of 3-5 seconds while tanks move into and out of siedgemode. That is why T Deathball with tanks is not so mobile and it’s interesting to watch. But the same delay of 3-5 seconds in moving whole P or Z Deathball can easily be achieved if 12-unit selection cap is introduced in sc2. The problem is that with Tanks being made more efficient you would be kinda making any tight clump of infantry units pretty much useless. The problem is that the positional units have no chance to survive against the tight formations of infantry. Sure they take a shot or two, but that wont kill the whole bunch and once the infantry is close to the Siege tanks the infantry can deal damage and the other Siege Tanks will kill them as well through the friendly fire splash damage. So the real problem is balancing the damage output of the Siege Tanks with the potential damage received by them. The current damage of the tanks would be ok, if the infantry couldnt get close as fast and especially in those HUGE numbers as it is the case in SC2 right now. Broodwar had the right ratio between both. Giving tanks more hit points/armor doesnt work at all, because that would make them "invincible" in any small encounter. So the best solution is to go back to an "infantry density" which is more like that from BW, because then the sneaky Viper abduct ability would have its use apart from fancy stuff and lobbing Infested Terrans to take shots would also be a requirement to break a tank position. On November 09 2012 19:56 MikeMM wrote: Any cap not bigger than 12 will help to make the game more interessting to watch and harder to play. Someone also suggested cap based on supply. A supply based cap - the idea of having a certain amount of room like in a dropship - doesnt work because of Zerglings. 24 Zerglings and especially Banelings would be too much clumping. The limited unit selection is the less important "fix" compared to changing the movement behaviour of the units, because 12 tightly packed Marauders can still demolish a lot rather quickly ... so they have to be "thinned out" through the basic movement to give any defender an advantage. 12 units is a nice compromise compared to basing the selection on supply, because moving your Siege Tanks to through the battle in groups of four is too tedious. | ||
|
AmericanPsycho
South Africa11 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 09 2012 20:29 AmericanPsycho wrote: I feel that the smaller unit groups thing will never be implemented, it will alienate allot of lower league players, due to the huge increase in skill level required to simply move your army. Look at this from a <diamond level, this change will seems stupid to anyone at that level, which is probably more than 50% of players. Thats illogical, because BOTH SIDES will have fewer units coming to a battle and battles with less units are easier to watch over and control since they are slower. If you have 10 Marines shooting a group of targets they die in a much slower speed than if you had 30 Marines. So less units makes it easier for lower league players, because the battles are slowed down. | ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
On November 09 2012 20:29 AmericanPsycho wrote: I feel that the smaller unit groups thing will never be implemented, it will alienate allot of lower league players, due to the huge increase in skill level required to simply move your army. Look at this from a <diamond level, this change will seems stupid to anyone at that level, which is probably more than 50% of players. In that case in late game we will always be watching Deathball against Deathball fight(If watching at all).  | ||
|
AmericanPsycho
South Africa11 Posts
On November 09 2012 20:32 Rabiator wrote: Thats illogical, because BOTH SIDES will have fewer units coming to a battle and battles with less units are easier to watch over and control since they are slower. If you have 10 Marines shooting a group of targets they die in a much slower speed than if you had 30 Marines. So less units makes it easier for lower league players, because the battles are slowed down. I understand your argument, but I'm just trying to be realistic here, there will be way too much complaining from the "casual" majority, the games will be less fun for them, most people won't appreciate the skill, they will just be frustrated at the "dumbed down" unit control. You are better off thinking of different solutions, that's all I'm saying. | ||
| ||
