EPTNo fix to clumpy unit movement - Page 11
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
dragonsuper
Liechtenstein222 Posts
Better the case of Brood war that promotes a good active micro that is very rewarding when you do it correctly. Without clumping we also remove the worst part of this game, that fights are decided so quick that there's no fun involved, in contrast to BW where every fight was so LONG and EPIC. What micro do you prefer ? Poll: What type of micro do you prefer ? Brood War Micro , force units to fire better and do more damage keeping them near the front of fire (19) Dustin Browder MICRO , AUTOMATIC CLUMPING split units to RESIST MORE to enemy fire (frustrating micr (7) 26 total votes Your vote: What type of micro do you prefer ? (Vote): Dustin Browder MICRO , AUTOMATIC CLUMPING split units to RESIST MORE to enemy fire (frustrating micr AUTOMATIC CLUMPING Dustin Browder MICRO , split units to RESIST MORE to enemy fire (frustrating micro if you fail) NO CLUMPING Brood War Micro , force units to fire better and do more damage keeping them near the front of fire if you do it correctly there's a better psycological reward (obviously you still have to spread in case of AOE damage) Sorry but there's 100 char limit on the poll | ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
I don't really like your poll. Both SC2 and BW unit movement have huge flaws. The best solution IMO is somewhere in the middle. | ||
|
dragonsuper
Liechtenstein222 Posts
| ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On October 31 2012 06:27 dragonsuper wrote: sorry you don't like it, but it is my opinion that it's the problem about sc2 actually... if you fix that the things will be really better I obviously think it's a huge problem too, I started this thread ^_^ | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On October 24 2012 06:06 SarcasmMonster wrote: Actually, i agree with this. There are a lot of buts in addition to this statement, however. I'm not really in the mood to go through all of my thoughts, but i'll give one to illustrate. I think the concern that units clumping too much affecting watchability is a just one, but i don't know what consequences fixing it will have. I could be wrong on the following suggestion, because i haven't played bw in a long time, but one of the things i think is the following: in bw you had a funny mechanic in which units moved parallel to eachother when moved and only went towards eachother when the destination was 'in between' (i'm sorry for poor wording) the units. Regarding the mentioned concern, i think a change to a situation similar to (not the same as) the bw situation could be beneficial, for splitting and clumping is a choice. Once your units have clumped, they don't spread too fast, but when they are spread, they don't clump too fast. Yes, i do think bw is a better game than wol is now. no, i don't want bw2. I hope no one is offended by these suggestions or cynical remarks.I know people hate bringing up BW but in my opinion the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle between WOL and BW. | ||
|
Scootaloo SC2
United States122 Posts
On October 31 2012 06:27 dragonsuper wrote: sorry you don't like it, but it is my opinion that it's the problem about sc2 actually... if you fix that the things will be really better I don't necessarily dislike the poll, but boy are those options worded in a biased manner. You should try to make the wording a little more neutral for the SC2 version, as opposed to the "random CAPITALIZED words (oh and is frustrating)" slant you've put on it. | ||
|
dragonsuper
Liechtenstein222 Posts
On October 31 2012 07:11 Scootaloo SC2 wrote: I don't necessarily dislike the poll, but boy are those options worded in a biased manner. You should try to make the wording a little more neutral for the SC2 version, as opposed to the "random CAPITALIZED words (oh and is frustrating)" slant you've put on it. you are right, it's biased there's nothing i can do about it , if i think that something is not right i fight it no matter what  | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On October 31 2012 04:07 Inex wrote: I played some Warcraft 3 yesterday and I almost broke my mouse in anger. That unit movement is horrendous, good thing Blizz decided to get rid of it. Yeah units clump up, but I've been playing this game for 2 years now and it never occurred to me that SC2's biggest problem is unit clumping. Seriously, now we need a thread about LAN and it will be like travelling back in time. You need to spend more than 5 minutes thinking about it objectively. The problem of clumping is really easy to explain and arguments like "I have been playing the game for 2 years now" are stupid, because they tell of your unwillingness to change. Maybe they should not bring out HotS, because that would change up things as well? 1. BW "basis" In Broodwar there was no automatic clumping and you had to work to "force" your units to be as tightly together as possible. Sure there was some pretty silly movement involved, but the units didnt clump up easily. What is the consequence? AoE spells and attacks FEEL powerful (70 damage siege tank attack is enough to 1-shot a lot of units), but isnt really, since they have a slow rate of fire and dont hit that many units. It also deals friendly fire, so the high damage can work against the one using it. This attack can be considered "overpowered" due to that 1-shotting ability, but it still didnt matter and was fair. 2. SC2 "improvements" In Starcraft 2 the units clump up VERY TIGHTLY, so the area attacks had to be nerfed in their magnitude for the simple reason that - with the same stats as in BW - it would have eliminated too much of an opponents army in one shot. Thus the Siege Tank only deals 35 damage to non-armored units (which is the majority of the infantry) now with a bonus (but still less than the BW value) against armored. So the AoE damage has been DECREASED; but what about the damage from the "troopers"? Lets take the Marine for example. It deals 6 damage in both games, but is that really the same? No it isnt, because in SC2 the Marines are gathered up in a very tight formation which results in a lot more dps than BW had for the same area. So you have a shift towards more "effective dps" in SC2 for small units and a clear nerf for AoE damage of all sorts to make this shift towards clumped up units work. That is the problem and it is these tightly packed formations of ground units which pretty much make air units useless. There simply is too much danger of getting your capital ships blown out of the sky by 20 tightly clumped up Marines and spells like Feedback or Fungal Growth dont help either. I really hope that makes the problem of tight formations clear. APPENDIX: In BW you had to micro as the attacker to get your units together in a tight formation and good position as the ATTACKER. In SC2 you only have to micro as the DEFENDER to evade those pesky Banelings, Fungals, Storms, ... That is a bad shifting of the micro and it makes the defender MUCH weaker/susceptible due to the super tight formations. You cant keep your units spread out as the defender, because the game has auto-clumping AND it also doesnt make sense from a tactical standpoint, because your "few units" will be overrun easily by your opponets "full army". Thus it makes sense from many more standpoints to get rid of the clumped up formations AND the unlimited unit selection. | ||
|
Patate
Canada441 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
I think the cons outweigh the pro's to change the unit movement. Not clumping up is great but the frustation of units not properly moving around ramps etc when the unit clumping is disabled, plus how ugly it looks around ramps is terrible. Units not clumping also causes painstakingly annoying micro when you actually WANT your units to be clumped up which is really often, for example moving all your roaches into position. Fighting against the game because your roaches won't maintain a good position because of some anti-clumping movement would be really annoying. I think it could be possible to have a little of both worlds: Add formation movement to the game! Just add an option (for example ctrl + click) to use formation movement when you want it. The game would work exactly the same as now when you don't use it but you can apply formation movement or formation attack move if you want to. This would basically be somewhat similar as issuing a command in a direction infinitely far away so all units move in that direction but maintain formation. Your units would move normally most of the time (to not cause silly annoyances around ramps etc and just look smooth) but formation movement would let them move as in the video by maverick basically. Note that units would still move at their own speed, they just wouldn't clump (so you don't get the ugly formation movement like you have in red alert 3 for example). I'm not sure if this is easy to implement (ie units use different pathing based on what sort of move order you give) but it could make avoiding clumps when you don't want to easier and as a result make the pro games, which are the only ones watched anyway, look a lot better. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
I think this can be broken down into 3 pathfinding possibilities. 1. What we have now. Spread formations have a tendency to clump up when moving to a location. Clumped formations remain clumped. This isn't really good because preemptive spreading is completely negated by automatic clumping, which may be too difficult to actively control manually. 2. What seems to happen in BW. Clumped formations actively and automatically spread out when moving. Spread formations obviously remain spread. I don't like this either because it might mean forcing sub-optimal pathfinding, and automating spreading takes away some micro potential from manual spreading. 3. What happens in alternative 2 and what I assumed the developers tested. Clumped formations remain clumped when moving and reaching a destination. Spread formations remain spread when moving a reaching a destination. This gives the player the most control, which is better than the pathfinding forcing certain formations over others. Players can choose to clump up their army and move around the map and engage as a clump, which has a high-DPS concentration but is vulnerable to splash damage. Alternatively, players can choose to preemptively spread their army manually and be able to move around with this spread formation, which negates a lot of splash damage but also reduces their DPS concentration and still requires attention to preemptively position and spread manually. So I think tweaking the magic box size could end up being a good solution. It doesn't automatically spread units, so players will still have to commit some attention to preemptively spreading manually or leave them clumped. It doesn't force clumping with every move command, which preserves these preemptive spreads. AoE damage can thus be buffed across the board to be more effective and meaningful since there is now a reasonable way to mitigate their damage better. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:08 Patate wrote: Would it really hurt to try it in HoTS beta for a week or two? seriously now. It isnt that simple ... If you add in "spread out movement" you have to adjust the AoE damage upwards again since it got nerfed due to the tight formation and finding the right balance here will take some time. If you start fiddling with those values you might also have to start thinking about limiting the number of units per control group to REALLY destroy the "full army vs full army" battles (aka deathball) in the same round of changes. One or two weeks wont do anything btw., because players take much longer to get used to changed situations. The only thing you need for the decision on which way to go is a clear mind and some logic thinking, because it is - as usual - a way of personal preference and if Dustin likes his clumped up units more than having to admit that the change was bad then we will never ever have an improvement in this situation. On October 31 2012 03:31 Garmer wrote: why they can't keep the eight direction movement.. i think it's simple and better, who care if we are in 2012 Now now ... be careful with these heretic words, else you will raise a shitstorm by the "disciples of new technology" for saying that something old is better than something new. Everything new has to be better and teenagers obviously know it all better than older people! [/sarcasm off] Many people believe they are atheists, but have really become "disciples of technology" or "new things" instead. There isnt a church yet, but the fanaticism and stupidity and lack of acceptance of other ways is there. Nothing new is automatically better than something old until it has proven itself to be so and even your brand new super hightech PC might be worse, because it actually consumes 5 times as much power as a slightly older one ... Its the same for new cars which have the tendency to be filled with "new gadgets" which make them heavier and consume more fuel; plus they usually have only a rather tiny rear window, which makes them rather bad at getting into a parking space. The same problem is true for kids who believe that SC2 is better in everything compared to BW. It isnt! Movement/clumping/unit selection is one of the things where it is worse; micro - like Nony's carrier micro - is another. Returning to "old ways" isnt going backwards, its wise and should be logical after thinking this through. On October 31 2012 12:23 Markwerf wrote: Add formation movement to the game! Bad idea, because you are supposed to MICRO to get your units into the correct position and not sort them out before the battle and then just march across the map in the correct formation. Formations also have the problem that they could be too static and not that easily adjusted during a battle. It simply isnt the style of Starcraft ... BW had the best solution here ... spread out units in small groups, so you HAD TO control and direct them intelligently. | ||
|
Angry.Zerg
Mexico305 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On October 31 2012 23:58 Angry.Zerg wrote: What blizzard should do is to limit the amount of units you can select to 12 supply... and bam! death balls and clumpy fixed. That alone doesnt fix the clumping, because you can simply set your units on "follow" and you will still have a very densely packed bunch of units close together without much need for control. I dont know how it is in SC2, but following units shouldnt fight, so the only thing that would be left was for you to box your units in a battle and target them on a unit. 12 SUPPLY is also not that much ... unless you are using Zerglings, so you either switch that to 24 supply or stick to the traditional 12 units. Without changing the pathing you will still have the densely packed clumps (although they would arrive at the battle a bit later maybe) of units which make capital ships and defensive structures rather useless right now. So we really need to spread the units automatically and only allow them to get packed through micro. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On November 01 2012 00:21 Rabiator wrote: Your thinking this would "fix" the game is hilarious. If it's easy to keep units packed, nothing changes. If it's difficult to keep units packed, it's suicide to ever attack into a defensive position because the DPS will ruin you before you get a chance to clump up your units and maximize your own DPS.That alone doesnt fix the clumping, because you can simply set your units on "follow" and you will still have a very densely packed bunch of units close together without much need for control. I dont know how it is in SC2, but following units shouldnt fight, so the only thing that would be left was for you to box your units in a battle and target them on a unit. 12 SUPPLY is also not that much ... unless you are using Zerglings, so you either switch that to 24 supply or stick to the traditional 12 units. Without changing the pathing you will still have the densely packed clumps (although they would arrive at the battle a bit later maybe) of units which make capital ships and defensive structures rather useless right now. So we really need to spread the units automatically and only allow them to get packed through micro. The only way this would not be the case would be if you increase the collision box sizes of units to force them to "spread" but that leads to all sorts of issues with pathing, clarity of whether or not a hole in a wall-in is truly "plugged"... units like marines would actually have to be buffed in some way to not get picked apart by early game compositions by P/Z, AoE buffs would consequently mean any AoE drop into a worker line easily destroyed every single worker mining instead of 1/3-1/2... And for what? For the sake of having units that don't clump up? You'd have to rebalance the entire game, completely alter unit behavior, lessen clarity... and that's for the option that DOESN'T involve making attacking into any group of marines ever an exercise in complete cost inefficiency unless you have AoE with your army. All it does is shuffle problems around, it doesn't FIX anything. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 01 2012 00:35 RampancyTW wrote: Your thinking this would "fix" the game is hilarious. If it's easy to keep units packed, nothing changes. If it's difficult to keep units packed, it's suicide to ever attack into a defensive position because the DPS will ruin you before you get a chance to clump up your units and maximize your own DPS. 1. It has been done in BW, so it DOES WORK. 2. If it is difficult to assault a position you would actually NEED the Viper and its abduct spell to break a Terran Siege line. Right now that is a gimmick and totally unnecessary unless you are getting behind and the Terran is sieging you outside your bases. So as the end result less clumped units, limited unit selection and more AoE damage would actually REQUIRE units like the Viper, the Tempest and the Battlecruiser to break these positions. These changes would actually give them a purpose in the game beyond "looking flashy". Thus there would be a need for more flexible and mixed strategies (the Terran would need anti-air against these "Siege Tank killers", which would reduce his ground army). Right now there is only "tightly packed army vs. another tightly packed army" with a clear advantage for the attacker. There is no positional play and no surprising strategies even though TLO does his best to innovate even as a Zerg (nydusing into a main base while guarding the Nydus with some Infested Terrans for example). | ||
|
Razac
Netherlands101 Posts
| ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On November 01 2012 00:43 Rabiator wrote: In BW, the AI was so awful that it was a struggle to get all your units in range to fight, period. Had little to do with the spread vs. clump dynamic at all, and much more to do with how many units could actually fight the enemy units at any given time. As I mentioned before, if it's easy to clump nothing changes, if it's hard to clump you can never attack into a pre-clumped army without AoE without getting smashed.1. It has been done in BW, so it DOES WORK. 2. If it is difficult to assault a position you would actually NEED the Viper and its abduct spell to break a Terran Siege line. Right now that is a gimmick and totally unnecessary unless you are getting behind and the Terran is sieging you outside your bases. So as the end result less clumped units, limited unit selection and more AoE damage would actually REQUIRE units like the Viper, the Tempest and the Battlecruiser to break these positions. These changes would actually give them a purpose in the game beyond "looking flashy". Thus there would be a need for more flexible and mixed strategies (the Terran would need anti-air against these "Siege Tank killers", which would reduce his ground army). Right now there is only "tightly packed army vs. another tightly packed army" with a clear advantage for the attacker. There is no positional play and no surprising strategies even though TLO does his best to innovate even as a Zerg (nydusing into a main base while guarding the Nydus with some Infested Terrans for example). Z already cannot attack into a siege line unless Z already has a significant lead and is throwing money at its problems to make them go away. And again this wouldn't balance the game even if your assertion were true-- it would merely shuffle problems around. If you make tanks so strong that Zerg can't attack them without the Viper, they'll be incredibly strong on offense, too, before the Zerg investment into Viper tech + Vipers actually pays off-- unless you nerf their offensive capabilities in some way that makes their role one-dimensional. The entire game has to change to accomodate... more spreading for the sake of spreading? Also "clear advantage to the attacker"? What in the hell? In what world is that true in SC2? We get it. You want SC2 to be exactly like BroodWar. There's no way to make SC2 like BroodWar, though. Too much in BW is dependent on the engine and AI and everything else. It would be impossible to maintain a modern, current-gen feel to SC2 while recreating all of the quirks of BW that made it somewhat balanced and actually playable in its state. | ||
| ||
