|
On November 01 2012 00:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes it does. Set your units on follow won't make them clump... they tend to form a line the longer the distance is. Also, as you said, they won't attack which is the whole point of a clump... being able to a-click once on the ground and sit while your army kills everything wont happen anymore.
But let's say that what you wrote is efficient (it is not). Put all your army to follow a unit or units of one group... it's apm intensive (the sole action of making the follow, then make them attack), which is good.
12 supply is fine. Why? Because it fixes some issues. Nowdays you can have 18 infestors in 1 hotkey and is easy to micro all of them, they automatically choose the infestor with more energy to fungal... etc. With 12 supply you can have only 6 infestors in a group. Since you can't select all of them... then you have to choose those with energy. That's APM intensive and time consuming, and that's good.
Same with a protoss death ball... you actually have to use APM to make it work.
And this is good in all levels of play. I would say some things wont be as imba in bronze league as they are today.
It will allow some nice come backs that are now impossible. Why? because you cant just one a-click into the base of someone anymore, giving him chances to recover if he over plays you.
Rising the skill cap this way is good, not really hard to implement and fun to watch. But we will never know if someone don't create a custom map with this implemented (because Blizzard won't implement it unless the community shows how does it work).
|
Spreading units is part of the skill of this game. Also, deathball syndrome will naturally go away so long as players are being more active with their units in the early and mid game (rather than just sitting around and passively macroing Idra/Artosis style).
|
I agree so much, thanks for explaining it so well
--------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.
|
i agree units not clumping up would be pretty cool. but would not stop deathballs because players do them on purpose. and as db said it would require a LOT of testing for somthing that most players will not use
|
Quick reminder that if you have strong convincing arguments, you should post them here:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6573699544
Browder has replied to that thread a few times now so they are definitely monitoring that thread.
It's so frustrating when people in that thread, Browder included, implies that the community hasn't tried hard enough exploring and testing alternative unit movement when the videos in the first post show that it has been tried by many people.
|
On November 01 2012 04:00 SarcasmMonster wrote:Quick reminder that if you have strong convincing arguments, you should post them here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6573699544Browder has replied to that thread a few times now so they are definitely monitoring that thread. It's so frustrating when people in that thread, Browder included, implies that the community hasn't tried hard enough exploring and testing alternative unit movement when the videos in the first post show that it has been tried by many people. He acknowledges those sorts of attempts with his statement about little practical difference being made in-game: and he's right. Very rarely are you moving your units on a single a-click across the map, and most of the time they're just going to clump up anyways as a result of your clicks/movements, without implementing some sort of system that makes your units behave erratically/unpredictably/inefficiently specifically to keep them from clumping up, at which point I'm not sure the gains come anywhere near approaching the losses.
|
I still cant see this having more pros than cons.
any hampering at pathfiding would result in less reliable reponse to commands. unavoidable randomness. in pvp you will be moving up a fat ramp and one time out of 5 time you stalkers will bug out. you did the same thing taht oyu did last 4-9 times but results were different.
every onces in a while when you are splitting marines againt baneligns, taht 2 marines in the middle will bug out and bling will melt everything. you did the samething you always do, but results were different.
reponses to commands need to be consistent. sc2 is both very responsive and consistent. I dont see any reason to hamper that.
surely occolusion size has nothing to do with this but units pushing friendly units should not be deformed.
|
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.
This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion.
|
On November 01 2012 04:37 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +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. This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion.
You are not supposed to mass carriers, and if you do.. then it should take some skill to manipulate them.
Simple as that.
On a side note, do you mass carriers in a normal game? I have played around 7,000 games on ladder since 2010 and hardly can remember someone using carriers more than a few times (maybe 10?)
W/e... what is the usual QQ about zergs being a protoss?? oh... Infestors... Broodlords... well, guess what? with this change actually that combo would require skill to make it work.
I wrote it in another post.. but if you have 18 infestors... you can't just spam click fungal... you could only select 6 infestors and would have to micro them wisely and actually put attention to what infestor has enough energy.
I'm using infestors since most Terrans and protoss QQ about them being too strong. But choose whatever you want... mass roaches a-clicking? well... it would take some skill to make it works while you don't eliminate that possibility from the game.
This change would make... actually... big battles of Tier 3 units fun to watch on progamers. And can't be abused in lower ranks.
|
On November 01 2012 04:45 Angry.Zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:37 eviltomahawk wrote: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. This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion. You are not supposed to mass carriers, and if you do.. then it should take some skill to manipulate them. Simple as that. On a side note, do you mass carriers in a normal game? I have played around 7,000 games on ladder since 2010 and hardly can remember someone using carriers more than a few times (maybe 10?) W/e... what is the usual QQ about zergs being a protoss?? oh... Infestors... Broodlords... well, guess what? with this change actually that combo would require skill to make it work. I wrote it in another post.. but if you have 18 infestors... you can't just spam click fungal... you could only select 6 infestors and would have to micro them wisely and actually put attention to what infestor has enough energy. I'm using infestors since most Terrans and protoss QQ about them being too strong. But choose whatever you want... mass roaches a-clicking? well... it would take some skill to make it works while you don't eliminate that possibility from the game. This change would make... actually... big battles of Tier 3 units fun to watch on progamers. And can't be abused in lower ranks.
Then why is it that I can select 12 Carriers in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 2 in SC2? Why is it that I can select 12 Zealots in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 6 in SC2? 12 Mutas in BW but only 6 in SC2? 12 Tanks in BW but only 4 in SC2? This is a regression from past games, not a progression.
Limiting selection based on supply is unintuitive. It's much better to limit selection based on unit count, not supply.
|
Dustin, it's been 2 years and we still have the very best progamers using deathballs. They aren't suddenly going to realize it's better to spread them out, because it isn't necessarily better. More concentrated = higher damage output and less likely for units to get separated/sniped.
|
Independently from the limited unit selection, the anti-clumping aspect of the game has to get in the game. 1-a an army should be viable for casuals, but suicide for pros.. the units should move out in a line becuase the 2nd row gets blocked by the 1st, 3rd by 2nd, and vice versa.
And for those who think it doesn't make a difference, or that it would take too much balance just for this, may I remind you that the "just for this" is actually the difference between a flourishing E-sport, and a dead game. SC2 is just not fun to watch right now.. either the game ends in a build order win, a timing push, or one big engagement. There is no dynamic gameplay like in BW, and this is one of the reasons (the other being too high income per base, and too much supply linked to workers).
So either Blizzard fixes this, whatever the effort (hey, aren't they paid to be working to make this game a better one), or they come out with a few new units and no fix, and then pretty much the end of the pro scene of this game (just look at the OSL). Back in Blizzcon, they announced the Oracle as an unit that isn't integrated to the deathball. One year later, they did a 180degree.. they realized every units need their use in the deathball at the current state of this game.
|
On November 01 2012 04:55 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:45 Angry.Zerg wrote:On November 01 2012 04:37 eviltomahawk wrote: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. This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion. You are not supposed to mass carriers, and if you do.. then it should take some skill to manipulate them. Simple as that. On a side note, do you mass carriers in a normal game? I have played around 7,000 games on ladder since 2010 and hardly can remember someone using carriers more than a few times (maybe 10?) W/e... what is the usual QQ about zergs being a protoss?? oh... Infestors... Broodlords... well, guess what? with this change actually that combo would require skill to make it work. I wrote it in another post.. but if you have 18 infestors... you can't just spam click fungal... you could only select 6 infestors and would have to micro them wisely and actually put attention to what infestor has enough energy. I'm using infestors since most Terrans and protoss QQ about them being too strong. But choose whatever you want... mass roaches a-clicking? well... it would take some skill to make it works while you don't eliminate that possibility from the game. This change would make... actually... big battles of Tier 3 units fun to watch on progamers. And can't be abused in lower ranks. Then why is it that I can select 12 Carriers in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 2 in SC2? Why is it that I can select 12 Zealots in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 6 in SC2? 12 Mutas in BW but only 6 in SC2? 12 Tanks in BW but only 4 in SC2? This is a regression from past games, not a progression. Limiting selection based on supply is unintuitive. It's much better to limit selection based on unit count, not supply.
I've never implied anything from BW in my comments. I don't care about BW, never played it. My suggestions are in benefit of increasing skill cap, increase viewer enjoyment, without breaking the game or making it impossible for lower leagues.
A powerful army should be hard to control, not easier.
And it won't be as hard for progamers as some are saying. They already have to spread their broodlords and infestors to avoid archon toilets, and move their T3 units in blocks. Won't be as frustrating for bronce players either. Some all-ins and cheeses will be harder to perform (like marine+scv won't be an a-click dance) and easier to defend.
And all that is good.
|
On November 01 2012 08:06 Angry.Zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:55 eviltomahawk wrote:On November 01 2012 04:45 Angry.Zerg wrote:On November 01 2012 04:37 eviltomahawk wrote: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. This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion. You are not supposed to mass carriers, and if you do.. then it should take some skill to manipulate them. Simple as that. On a side note, do you mass carriers in a normal game? I have played around 7,000 games on ladder since 2010 and hardly can remember someone using carriers more than a few times (maybe 10?) W/e... what is the usual QQ about zergs being a protoss?? oh... Infestors... Broodlords... well, guess what? with this change actually that combo would require skill to make it work. I wrote it in another post.. but if you have 18 infestors... you can't just spam click fungal... you could only select 6 infestors and would have to micro them wisely and actually put attention to what infestor has enough energy. I'm using infestors since most Terrans and protoss QQ about them being too strong. But choose whatever you want... mass roaches a-clicking? well... it would take some skill to make it works while you don't eliminate that possibility from the game. This change would make... actually... big battles of Tier 3 units fun to watch on progamers. And can't be abused in lower ranks. Then why is it that I can select 12 Carriers in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 2 in SC2? Why is it that I can select 12 Zealots in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 6 in SC2? 12 Mutas in BW but only 6 in SC2? 12 Tanks in BW but only 4 in SC2? This is a regression from past games, not a progression. Limiting selection based on supply is unintuitive. It's much better to limit selection based on unit count, not supply. I've never implied anything from BW in my comments. I don't care about BW, never played it. My suggestions are in benefit of increasing skill cap, increase viewer enjoyment, without breaking the game or making it impossible for lower leagues. A powerful army should be hard to control, not easier. And it won't be as hard for progamers as some are saying. They already have to spread their broodlords and infestors to avoid archon toilets, and move their T3 units in blocks. Won't be as frustrating for bronce players either. Some all-ins and cheeses will be harder to perform (like marine+scv won't be an a-click dance) and easier to defend. And all that is good.
Well, something of this sort has never been tried out in any other RTS ever made. Never, ever. Unit selection limits have always been based on unit count, not supply, in every single RTS that had a selection limit. I think there may be a reason for that.
|
On November 01 2012 08:30 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 08:06 Angry.Zerg wrote:On November 01 2012 04:55 eviltomahawk wrote:On November 01 2012 04:45 Angry.Zerg wrote:On November 01 2012 04:37 eviltomahawk wrote: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. This is terribly unintuitive and highly restrictive. If I wanted to control Carriers, 12 supply of Carriers is literally TWO Carriers. Why the hell would I want to play a game where the selection limit is as low as 2? I could even select more units in Warcraft 1! Taking away multiple unit selection and only having singe unit selection would "raise the skill cap" even more, so why not go with that? I absolutely do not like this suggestion. You are not supposed to mass carriers, and if you do.. then it should take some skill to manipulate them. Simple as that. On a side note, do you mass carriers in a normal game? I have played around 7,000 games on ladder since 2010 and hardly can remember someone using carriers more than a few times (maybe 10?) W/e... what is the usual QQ about zergs being a protoss?? oh... Infestors... Broodlords... well, guess what? with this change actually that combo would require skill to make it work. I wrote it in another post.. but if you have 18 infestors... you can't just spam click fungal... you could only select 6 infestors and would have to micro them wisely and actually put attention to what infestor has enough energy. I'm using infestors since most Terrans and protoss QQ about them being too strong. But choose whatever you want... mass roaches a-clicking? well... it would take some skill to make it works while you don't eliminate that possibility from the game. This change would make... actually... big battles of Tier 3 units fun to watch on progamers. And can't be abused in lower ranks. Then why is it that I can select 12 Carriers in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 2 in SC2? Why is it that I can select 12 Zealots in BW, but with this suggestion I can only select 6 in SC2? 12 Mutas in BW but only 6 in SC2? 12 Tanks in BW but only 4 in SC2? This is a regression from past games, not a progression. Limiting selection based on supply is unintuitive. It's much better to limit selection based on unit count, not supply. I've never implied anything from BW in my comments. I don't care about BW, never played it. My suggestions are in benefit of increasing skill cap, increase viewer enjoyment, without breaking the game or making it impossible for lower leagues. A powerful army should be hard to control, not easier. And it won't be as hard for progamers as some are saying. They already have to spread their broodlords and infestors to avoid archon toilets, and move their T3 units in blocks. Won't be as frustrating for bronce players either. Some all-ins and cheeses will be harder to perform (like marine+scv won't be an a-click dance) and easier to defend. And all that is good. Well, something of this sort has never been tried out in any other RTS ever made. Never, ever. Unit selection limits have always been based on unit count, not supply, in every single RTS that had a selection limit. I think there may be a reason for that.
"X has never been tried before, it should be bad".
That is not an argument, an argument is: "X would be bad because it will cause Y and Z".
I'm providing examples of actual strategies and compositions that are being used in the current metagame.
|
On November 01 2012 01:10 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 00:43 Rabiator wrote:On November 01 2012 00:35 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2012 00:21 Rabiator wrote: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. 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). 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. 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.
1. Movement isnt really "the AI" ... its a mechanic used by the game and has nothing to do with the AI which controls "NPC players". I fully agree with you that the way in which units moved in BW was infuriating sometimes (getting Dragoons into a tight formation was WORK), BUT at the same time I would say that SC2 "perfection" went too far and has several consequences which affected the gameplay negatively.
If it is easy to clump nothing changes indeed ... UNLESS you add a penalty for clumping up by making AoE stronger.
2. Zerg doesnt need to attack into a siege line because the Terran needs to have all his Siege Tanks together to have a chance against any Zergling/Baneling attacks and this gives Zerg the opportunity to go around them. You dont win by killing the enemy army, you win by killing their base. Zerg can easily attack into a Siege line with Broodlords and if a major part of the Terran army is invested in tanks they cant defend well against that, plus the Infestor is the strongest spellcaster in the game. Zerg also have and will get many more "free unit generators" and these make assaulting Siege lines pretty easy.
3. You apparently didnt understand what I wrote.
Just think about the Marines in both games and a bunker/photon cannon/spine crawler [just a static defense to demonstrate the changes]. I hope the calculations in THIS THREAD are correct and this gives 6.2 dps for a BW Marine and 6.97 for a SC2 Marine. That isnt that much different, but it isnt the only change to the dps. You also have to include the movement and formation change. In BW your units were heading to the front "single file in squads of 12" and in SC2 they are charging "as a clump of unlimited size". This makes it clear that there will be many more of them in range of your target much quicker. In war it is a distinct advantage to have the first shot and the attacker decides where the engagement takes place.
Now lets come back to the bunker/photon cannon/spine crawler. These are static defenses which *could be* used to assist a defender, but their value between the games has decreased due to the increased density of attackers. You simply tear them apart - once a critical number is reached - far too quickly for them to be a threat. This is a clear advantage for the attacker and it is the same for any battle between two armies. You cant play defensively - in a later game engagement with bigger armies - unless you have something like Force Field or Fungal Growth to "modify the battlefield in your favor". The advantage for the attacker doesnt really show until the armies are bigger, but it is there nonetheless since the dps of the units increased significantly by having more of them in the same area "automatically".
In BW you needed to have spells like Dark Swarm and other tricks to break into a defended position, in SC2 you dont need them, because you can simply use the right formation for chopping off a part of your opponents army if he is in a bad spot. So adding such spells like Dark Swarm would be making the game totally unfair and yet we already have similar spells in the form of Forcefield and most importantly Fungal Growth. The Viper does get a "new Dark Swarm" though, right? So ... the attackers advantage is clearly there and yet they add "break the defender" spells? That doesnt work!
4. You dont get it. I DONT want SC2 to be like Broodwar, I just compare the two games and look at the differences. There is a decided lack in playstyles in SC2 but there wasnt in BW and this makes the newer game worse than the old one. The design of SC2 is limiting the things which the devs can do simply because spells and AoE attacks are "too powerful" against tightly clumped packs. If they get rid of that and the deathball they can add more fancy spells without them being overpowered. Thats the problem of SC2 ... it is limited in its potential by the design flaw of tight formations and unlimited unit selection (plus a few others like the burst production of units).
----
AoE attacks in BW - lets take the Siege Tank as an example - can have an efficiency between 1 and maybe 3-5, which means that you hit 1 Marine (and kill it) or you hit 3-5 targets (due to the "loose formation" you hit a lot of "open space").
In SC2 you have a totally different situation, because your attacks can hit between 1 and 20 targets depending upon the formation. Thus the attack had to be nerfed, because otherwise it would have been "unfair". + Show Spoiler +Basically the Siege Tank in SC2 is efficient only when it can hit a certain minimum amount of targets, while it could kill a single Marine on its own in BW.
|
Supply based unit selection limit is a terrible idea. It is unintuitive and forces calculations onto the player which do not represent additional player skill. In SC1 you could put 12 muta or 12 lings or 12 carriers in a selection. It was easy to understand and use. I have no problem with a limited selection being re implemented, but not based on supply.
|
every time i see this thread bump it pisses me off . like REALLY . split units should be a manual skill . stop doing auto stuff . auto splitting or Pre splitting ? seriously ? damn the guy who made this thread is a genius . and you even dare to ask developers about this . so the difference between mkp split and you will be none . GG make pro gamers worth even lower !!
|
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.
No point in suggesting or discussing unit selection caps.
Browder already adamantly stated that they will not put in any kind of unit selection cap as they hurt lower skilled players too much.
Why would he make such a claim? Probably because unit selection caps have already been thoroughly tested like everything else they do.
|
Haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say in RA3 you could press a hotkey and units will expand from center point, I believe there's is a collapse formation command too. Also if you press both mouse buttons at the same time and move the mouse it cycles through different formations for units selected. always thought SC2 could copy a lot of these ideas.
I know some people pride themselves on being able to score high on the marine split challenge but honestly spreading out units shouldn't be a chore. If you chuck a grenade into the middle of a group of people they split pretty instinctively, I don't see why that needs to be a big skill in Starcraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
