|
On November 01 2012 17:23 MasterCynical 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. 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.
Makes you wonder how they could ever need anyone else's help for balancing, right?
|
On November 01 2012 17:15 xsnac wrote:
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 !!
No ... CLUMPED units should be a manual skill ...
So which one is better? I have given my math-based reasons for my opinion, where are your reasons? Both require skill, but yours puts the "skill requirement" on the defender, while I would like to put it on the attacker. No one is asking for "auto splitting" btw ... just NOT auto-clustering (plus limited unit selection).
Pros in BW managed to give us awesome games without auto-clumping, so what is your point exactly?
|
DB is right in this regard. Any novel twist to pathing will be overridden by the spam click. What point he is missing is that the win conditions for the player is to still deathball. The intrinsic properties of the units make it so. Long range, tightly packed, mobile units where the entire ball can use its DPS with near 100% uptime for 200 supply army.
Units need more space between them, less range, and less uniform mobility. The win states will naturally diverge from ball vs ball. I would put it on b.net but no beta.
|
On November 01 2012 17:57 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 17:23 MasterCynical 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. 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. Makes you wonder how they could ever need anyone else's help for balancing, right?
They also said people don't want chats and the Facebook integration would be the most amazing feature ever. For sure they already thoroughly tested like everything else they do.
Cap didn't hurt lower skilled players in all their previous RTSs.
I'm disappointed. I've described how it would affect the game in the current metagame, and wrote about some examples occurring in the Master league (which is the one I play), but the only counter-arguments people say is "It has never been done before!!!" or "They said it will hurt lower skilled players, it should be true".
|
I still think everyone needs to get off the clumped units ruining the game and 12 unit selection bandwagon. If they limited unit selection most of the ppl would quit the game because it would be too hard for them. thats counter productive. And if you dont like your units clumped... split your units manually. Pro's lately are just really getting into spliiting their units fully. Rain vs Hero showed the benefits of splitting ur units. Just stop being lazy and split your units. spreading them out more is not needed. The only thing positive to get from it is visual but its better to see a good player split his units.
|
On November 01 2012 18:54 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 17:15 xsnac wrote:
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 !! No ... CLUMPED units should be a manual skill ... So which one is better? I have given my math-based reasons for my opinion, where are your reasons? Both require skill, but yours puts the "skill requirement" on the defender, while I would like to put it on the attacker. No one is asking for "auto splitting" btw ... just NOT auto-clustering (plus limited unit selection). Pros in BW managed to give us awesome games without auto-clumping, so what is your point exactly?
dude sc2 is sc2 , is not bw and it will never be . if you miss so much how units would go in a indian line when u give them attack command or move command . sc:bw servers are still active . i just played on iccup yeasterday . clump up units should not be a skill . since clumping up is never useful (excepting melee vs range in huge numbers ) .
edit : ye , clumping gives no benefit . so making units to not clump up , will make game easier . immagine fungal growth on units that are not cumplet up .
btw . tell me when we you have ever saw a pro gamer that clump up units to gain an edge or have a benefit . your ideeas are just dumb .
|
I think the game would be much easier if they make the units walk around in a less clumpy fashion. With all the AOE in this game combined with the clumpy pathing it actually adds some skill to the game. If you take that out that's like half the micro in sc2 gone. And nothing you do to the pathing will make the game more like bw, shitty pathing+12 unit ctrl groups are what made it good. Unless blizzard is willing to go back to a lower ctrl group cap, changing the pathing to something less clumpy will only make the game easier in my opinion.
|
On November 02 2012 03:36 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 18:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 01 2012 17:15 xsnac wrote:
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 !! No ... CLUMPED units should be a manual skill ... So which one is better? I have given my math-based reasons for my opinion, where are your reasons? Both require skill, but yours puts the "skill requirement" on the defender, while I would like to put it on the attacker. No one is asking for "auto splitting" btw ... just NOT auto-clustering (plus limited unit selection). Pros in BW managed to give us awesome games without auto-clumping, so what is your point exactly? dude sc2 is sc2 , is not bw and it will never be . if you miss so much how units would go in a indian line when u give them attack command or move command . sc:bw servers are still active . i just played on iccup yeasterday . clump up units should not be a skill . since clumping up is never useful (excepting melee vs range in huge numbers ) . edit : ye , clumping gives no benefit . so making units to not clump up , will make game easier . immagine fungal growth on units that are not cumplet up . btw . tell me when we you have ever saw a pro gamer that clump up units to gain an edge or have a benefit . your ideeas are just dumb .
No one is saying that the game does not need to be rebalanced after such changes... most people are proposing a buff to AOE radius/damage to compensate for change.
A buffed Fungal Growth will absolutely slay anyone who doesn't spread their units.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8JP9.jpg)
Clumping units does have an advantage in many situations, it maximizes the DPS of your ball of units.
|
On November 02 2012 03:36 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 18:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 01 2012 17:15 xsnac wrote:
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 !! No ... CLUMPED units should be a manual skill ... So which one is better? I have given my math-based reasons for my opinion, where are your reasons? Both require skill, but yours puts the "skill requirement" on the defender, while I would like to put it on the attacker. No one is asking for "auto splitting" btw ... just NOT auto-clustering (plus limited unit selection). Pros in BW managed to give us awesome games without auto-clumping, so what is your point exactly? dude sc2 is sc2 , is not bw and it will never be . if you miss so much how units would go in a indian line when u give them attack command or move command . sc:bw servers are still active . i just played on iccup yeasterday . clump up units should not be a skill . since clumping up is never useful (excepting melee vs range in huge numbers ) . edit : ye , clumping gives no benefit . so making units to not clump up , will make game easier . immagine fungal growth on units that are not cumplet up . btw . tell me when we you have ever saw a pro gamer that clump up units to gain an edge or have a benefit . your ideeas are just dumb .
I think you've missed the point completely. Read some more of this thread before commenting.
|
On November 01 2012 21:57 Cloak wrote:
DB is right in this regard. Any novel twist to pathing will be overridden by the spam click. What point he is missing is that the win conditions for the player is to still deathball. The intrinsic properties of the units make it so. Long range, tightly packed, mobile units where the entire ball can use its DPS with near 100% uptime for 200 supply army.
Units need more space between them, less range, and less uniform mobility. The win states will naturally diverge from ball vs ball. I would put it on b.net but no beta.
|
|
|
On November 01 2012 21:57 Cloak wrote:
DB is right in this regard. Any novel twist to pathing will be overridden by the spam click. What point he is missing is that the win conditions for the player is to still deathball. The intrinsic properties of the units make it so. Long range, tightly packed, mobile units where the entire ball can use its DPS with near 100% uptime for 200 supply army.
Units need more space between them, less range, and less uniform mobility. The win states will naturally diverge from ball vs ball. I would put it on b.net but no beta.
Yes that's a fair point as well. I've been a fan of making marauders a tiny bit slower than marines so that they dont all move around in a compact blob together.
The problem is deeply rooted, which is why Browder will not consider removing it even though he should be testing different unit pathing ideas constantly.
SC2 needs a few things:
1) A better magic box, which as I've said many times in this thread, will allow a player to control precisely how his units spread out: tight or clumped, it doesn't matter. It takes nothing away from progamers (it even adds skill to the game unlike an automatic formation button). It ensures the player doesnt fight the interface like Broodwar or SC2 pathing (where units prefer to clump up and also get pushed around by each other).
Splitting marines vs banelings is still a skill, but it is intuitive and satisfying to get it right. Units you want split stay split instead of re-converging because of the pathing issues.
2) Units need to spread out more as they move, instead of clumping up perfectly in a ball. Some people hate this because it "looks ugly" or its "not optimal movement" or something, but this change increases the defender's advantage. Noobs will find little change while pros will be able to micro effectively enough to mitigate its effects. We aren't talking BW pathing, were making armies a bit more spread out as they move ensuring that a smaller enemy army can pick a larger army apart as it moves, or that a strong efficient defense will be able to trade well with a larger more spread out army.
Larger armies should be harder to control than smaller armies, but not impossible, hence no 12 unit cap or other madness. Let's not fight old battles again.
3) When these are changed, AoE needs to be revisited and tweaked if necessary. There's all sorts of unhealthy things in the game: fungal as a root, EMP + fungal without a dodgable projectile, and colossi. Let's address these issues. If radius/damage need to be buffed, so be it. But let's add skill instead of taking it away.
4) As cloak says, units need to be differentiated more. Look at reavers and templars in broodwar. You cant 1-a across the map with a reaver/dragoon/zealot/archon deathball even if pathing were to become like SC2.
|
SC2 needs a few things:
1) A better magic box, which as I've said many times in this thread, will allow a player to control precisely how his units spread out: tight or clumped, it doesn't matter. It takes nothing away from progamers (it even adds skill to the game unlike an automatic formation button). It ensures the player doesnt fight the interface like Broodwar or SC2 pathing (where units prefer to clump up and also get pushed around by each other).
Splitting marines vs banelings is still a skill, but it is intuitive and satisfying to get it right. Units you want split stay split instead of re-converging because of the pathing issues.
2) Units need to spread out more as they move, instead of clumping up perfectly in a ball. Some people hate this because it "looks ugly" or its "not optimal movement" or something, but this change increases the defender's advantage. Noobs will find little change while pros will be able to micro effectively enough to mitigate its effects. We aren't talking BW pathing, were making armies a bit more spread out as they move ensuring that a smaller enemy army can pick a larger army apart as it moves, or that a strong efficient defense will be able to trade well with a larger more spread out army.
Larger armies should be harder to control than smaller armies, but not impossible, hence no 12 unit cap or other madness. Let's not fight old battles again.
3) When these are changed, AoE needs to be revisited and tweaked if necessary. There's all sorts of unhealthy things in the game: fungal as a root, EMP + fungal without a dodgable projectile, and colossi. Let's address these issues. If radius/damage need to be buffed, so be it. But let's add skill instead of taking it away.
4) As cloak says, units need to be differentiated more. Look at reavers and templars in broodwar. You cant 1-a across the map with a reaver/dragoon/zealot/archon deathball even if pathing were to become like SC2.
I really like this post. Simply making the units spread out more automatically by itself could degrade the difficulty and make the game less interesting. However, the issue I think is more complex than that. The pathing needs to be fixed because players are "fighting" the UI which is never good design; I really like the idea of a super efficient, well executed defense being able to prevail, as well as the fact that a moving army is slightly more vulnerable than an army in position to attack.
Really well thought-out post, thanks 
|
On November 01 2012 21:57 Cloak wrote:
DB is right in this regard. Any novel twist to pathing will be overridden by the spam click. What point he is missing is that the win conditions for the player is to still deathball. The intrinsic properties of the units make it so. Long range, tightly packed, mobile units where the entire ball can use its DPS with near 100% uptime for 200 supply army.
Units need more space between them, less range, and less uniform mobility. The win states will naturally diverge from ball vs ball. I would put it on b.net but no beta.
Perfectly summarised. I wish people would read more replies like this and think before commenting. Each of the three (small unit collision radius-UCR-/Long weapon range/uniform mobility) all exacerbate the problem that is the ease of use of the deathball. Any of these three changes will help. However, I feel blizzard are less likely to lower range or increase UCR. I feel that it is imperetive that unit mobility needs to be more diverse.
If the collosus were slower (maybe attack path changed too), marines had a slightly larger UCR, and the infestor wasn't the queen(chess) of zerg ^^ we might see a lot more positional gameplay from top players.
|
On November 02 2012 13:39 Actionfigurejesus wrote:Show nested quote +SC2 needs a few things:
1) A better magic box, which as I've said many times in this thread, will allow a player to control precisely how his units spread out: tight or clumped, it doesn't matter. It takes nothing away from progamers (it even adds skill to the game unlike an automatic formation button). It ensures the player doesnt fight the interface like Broodwar or SC2 pathing (where units prefer to clump up and also get pushed around by each other).
Splitting marines vs banelings is still a skill, but it is intuitive and satisfying to get it right. Units you want split stay split instead of re-converging because of the pathing issues.
2) Units need to spread out more as they move, instead of clumping up perfectly in a ball. Some people hate this because it "looks ugly" or its "not optimal movement" or something, but this change increases the defender's advantage. Noobs will find little change while pros will be able to micro effectively enough to mitigate its effects. We aren't talking BW pathing, were making armies a bit more spread out as they move ensuring that a smaller enemy army can pick a larger army apart as it moves, or that a strong efficient defense will be able to trade well with a larger more spread out army.
Larger armies should be harder to control than smaller armies, but not impossible, hence no 12 unit cap or other madness. Let's not fight old battles again.
3) When these are changed, AoE needs to be revisited and tweaked if necessary. There's all sorts of unhealthy things in the game: fungal as a root, EMP + fungal without a dodgable projectile, and colossi. Let's address these issues. If radius/damage need to be buffed, so be it. But let's add skill instead of taking it away.
4) As cloak says, units need to be differentiated more. Look at reavers and templars in broodwar. You cant 1-a across the map with a reaver/dragoon/zealot/archon deathball even if pathing were to become like SC2. I really like this post. Simply making the units spread out more automatically by itself could degrade the difficulty and make the game less interesting. However, the issue I think is more complex than that. The pathing needs to be fixed because players are "fighting" the UI which is never good design; I really like the idea of a super efficient, well executed defense being able to prevail, as well as the fact that a moving army is slightly more vulnerable than an army in position to attack. Really well thought-out post, thanks
We need to start a new thread summarising these great concepts. And have the same one put on the Blizzard beta forum. I'd really hate to see SC2 HOTS become just SC2.09. A few new units is not gonna cut it in my mind, for the pros or for spectators with a brain.
|
On November 02 2012 04:08 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 03:36 xsnac wrote:On November 01 2012 18:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 01 2012 17:15 xsnac wrote:
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 !! No ... CLUMPED units should be a manual skill ... So which one is better? I have given my math-based reasons for my opinion, where are your reasons? Both require skill, but yours puts the "skill requirement" on the defender, while I would like to put it on the attacker. No one is asking for "auto splitting" btw ... just NOT auto-clustering (plus limited unit selection). Pros in BW managed to give us awesome games without auto-clumping, so what is your point exactly? dude sc2 is sc2 , is not bw and it will never be . if you miss so much how units would go in a indian line when u give them attack command or move command . sc:bw servers are still active . i just played on iccup yeasterday . clump up units should not be a skill . since clumping up is never useful (excepting melee vs range in huge numbers ) . edit : ye , clumping gives no benefit . so making units to not clump up , will make game easier . immagine fungal growth on units that are not cumplet up . btw . tell me when we you have ever saw a pro gamer that clump up units to gain an edge or have a benefit . your ideeas are just dumb . No one is saying that the game does not need to be rebalanced after such changes... most people are proposing a buff to AOE radius/damage to compensate for change. A buffed Fungal Growth will absolutely slay anyone who doesn't spread their units. Clumping units does have an advantage in many situations, it maximizes the DPS of your ball of units.
Exactly the point ... with non-clumping possible and a buffed AoE damage you are suddenly faced with a CHOICE: clump up and maximize your own dps and take the risk to be annihilated OR not clump up and work with a lesser dps for your attacking formation. Its all about adding more choice to the game and variety of tactics for the viewer.
The current "big splashes of green" in a ZvZ when two roach, baneling, fungal and infested terran egg armies clash is pretty ugly and boring, because you can't differentiate between these masses of brown and green and which belongs to which side. So spreading them out would help with that AND it would slow down the battles, so you could actually make a difference with micro (like focus firing with your units). Personally I really like games of harrassment here and there and everywhere much more than two full armies clashing, but harrassment isnt that easy to pull off.
----
Dear xsnac,
please dont "dude" me and please tell me why BW is such a terrible game that you dont want SC2 to become more like it. No one is actually saying that SC2 should become exactly like it, but there are several bad "improvements" which were made for SC2 whose negative side effects are only becoming clear just now. There are mathematical reasons why the clumped unit formations are terrible and stifling to the development of strategies and yet you dont seem to understand this.
Since this is a forum for discussions it would be really nice of you to actually argue with our point of view and talk about our explanations as to why clumped unit movement is bad .... instead of simply "accusing" us to try and make the game more like BW. Open and loose formations will require more skill and give more opportunities for micro and strategies to develop and it will make balancing the units easier. Thats really easy to understand, but why should it be bad? Enlighten us please.
|
Frodan: I also want to follow up on a post you made a while ago. It was on the forums, I'm not sure if you can recall. But you talked about changing maybe the unit pathing AI, maybe tweaking some of the dynamic movement. Can you explain exactly what you guys did, maybe the results, and maybe some of your concerns because you said it wasn't that different.
Browder: We saw some videos that our fans put together, which is awesome. A variable which they were tweaking within the path finder, it would basically cause units to keep their position until they got to their target point, and they would still cluster up again. A lot of our players have felt that the spreading out would be something beneficial for E-sports, that it would cause the armies to look bigger, it would be a little easier to read what's going on in some of the bigger armies. So we tested this variable in our game, we tested it for a couple of days, playing tons and tons of games and it didn't make much of a difference because the reality is the test they were showing on a map was all these units spread out with a single right click across the map so the units will all spread out, so it look great. But nobody plays that way. They click rapidly in very short spaces so the units are always clustered. The other thing too that's typical about this is the fact of the matter that players want their units clustered. They don't want them spread out. It's more cool for E-sports perspective but not if you want to win a game. If you want to win a game, you want to cluster. You especially want to cluster when you are fighting with Marines and Maruaders, say against Zealots. You want to be in a tight ball and murdering them. You do want to split when you want to fight Banelings. So there's sometimes you want to split, and sometimes want to cluster. So it's really about what's the default and for us it felt like the smarter answer is look most of the time, especially for new users, clustering is correct. If the pros want to split up their units, they should split up their units and that's something they can do. We're seeing more and more and more pros who want to win games are spreading out their armies at the appropriate moment and gaining an advantage for it. But at the end of the day, we didn't put that one in beta because it didn't do that much. I wouldn't be ashamed to try something else at some point to see how that feels but that one did not do sort of what we all thought it would. It was actually almost no change to the game at all, so at that point what's the point of introducing all that work on us, all the testing, and all the uncertainty of that if it doesn't actually change much.
Frodan interviewing Browder at WCS
I'm getting the impression they ONLY tested the implementation from the original BNet thread's OP, and never tried the other plausible implementations.
|
On November 18 2012 23:53 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +Frodan: I also want to follow up on a post you made a while ago. It was on the forums, I'm not sure if you can recall. But you talked about changing maybe the unit pathing AI, maybe tweaking some of the dynamic movement. Can you explain exactly what you guys did, maybe the results, and maybe some of your concerns because you said it wasn't that different.
Browder: We saw some videos that our fans put together, which is awesome. A variable which they were tweaking within the path finder, it would basically cause units to keep their position until they got to their target point, and they would still cluster up again. A lot of our players have felt that the spreading out would be something beneficial for E-sports, that it would cause the armies to look bigger, it would be a little easier to read what's going on in some of the bigger armies. So we tested this variable in our game, we tested it for a couple of days, playing tons and tons of games and it didn't make much of a difference because the reality is the test they were showing on a map was all these units spread out with a single right click across the map so the units will all spread out, so it look great. But nobody plays that way. They click rapidly in very short spaces so the units are always clustered. The other thing too that's typical about this is the fact of the matter that players want their units clustered. They don't want them spread out. It's more cool for E-sports perspective but not if you want to win a game. If you want to win a game, you want to cluster. You especially want to cluster when you are fighting with Marines and Maruaders, say against Zealots. You want to be in a tight ball and murdering them. You do want to split when you want to fight Banelings. So there's sometimes you want to split, and sometimes want to cluster. So it's really about what's the default and for us it felt like the smarter answer is look most of the time, especially for new users, clustering is correct. If the pros want to split up their units, they should split up their units and that's something they can do. We're seeing more and more and more pros who want to win games are spreading out their armies at the appropriate moment and gaining an advantage for it. But at the end of the day, we didn't put that one in beta because it didn't do that much. I wouldn't be ashamed to try something else at some point to see how that feels but that one did not do sort of what we all thought it would. It was actually almost no change to the game at all, so at that point what's the point of introducing all that work on us, all the testing, and all the uncertainty of that if it doesn't actually change much. Frodan interviewing Browder at WCSI'm getting the impression they ONLY tested the implementation from the original BNet thread's OP, and never tried the other plausible implementations.
They also dont understand the reason why clumped units are terrible ... which is actually terribly simple.
Units have a different balance relationship to other units based upon the number of units involved in a battle. Easy example: 2 Marines vs 1 Zealot means the Marines have to run a lot, but change that to 20 Marines vs 10 Zealots and the Marines dont have to run as much, because the clump of Marines will kill a few of the Zealots before they even get in range. The bigger the number the bigger the difference is to "just a few" units. This is the reason why SC2 has so many "critical number units" like Void Rays, Colossi, Hydras, ... Broodwar didnt have critical numbers of units - or at least not that many - and the reason is the much lower density of the units.
|
Frodan: I also want to follow up on a post you made a while ago. It was on the forums, I'm not sure if you can recall. But you talked about changing maybe the unit pathing AI, maybe tweaking some of the dynamic movement. Can you explain exactly what you guys did, maybe the results, and maybe some of your concerns because you said it wasn't that different.
Browder: We saw some videos that our fans put together, which is awesome. A variable which they were tweaking within the path finder, it would basically cause units to keep their position until they got to their target point, and they would still cluster up again. A lot of our players have felt that the spreading out would be something beneficial for E-sports, that it would cause the armies to look bigger, it would be a little easier to read what's going on in some of the bigger armies. So we tested this variable in our game, we tested it for a couple of days, playing tons and tons of games and it didn't make much of a difference because the reality is the test they were showing on a map was all these units spread out with a single right click across the map so the units will all spread out, so it look great. But nobody plays that way. They click rapidly in very short spaces so the units are always clustered. The other thing too that's typical about this is the fact of the matter that players want their units clustered. They don't want them spread out. It's more cool for E-sports perspective but not if you want to win a game. If you want to win a game, you want to cluster. You especially want to cluster when you are fighting with Marines and Maruaders, say against Zealots. You want to be in a tight ball and murdering them. You do want to split when you want to fight Banelings. So there's sometimes you want to split, and sometimes want to cluster. So it's really about what's the default and for us it felt like the smarter answer is look most of the time, especially for new users, clustering is correct. If the pros want to split up their units, they should split up their units and that's something they can do. We're seeing more and more and more pros who want to win games are spreading out their armies at the appropriate moment and gaining an advantage for it. But at the end of the day, we didn't put that one in beta because it didn't do that much. I wouldn't be ashamed to try something else at some point to see how that feels but that one did not do sort of what we all thought it would. It was actually almost no change to the game at all, so at that point what's the point of introducing all that work on us, all the testing, and all the uncertainty of that if it doesn't actually change much.
Frodan interviewing Browder at WCS
Every time he talks it becomes clearer that he has no clue. The man is an imbecile.
Of course people want to clump. Units have small collision radius, massive range and all move at the same speed.
YOU BUILT THE GAME SO THAT CLUMPING IS OPTIMAL.
Since clumping is ugly and boring, the simplest fix is therefore, FORCE them to not be able to clump.
It's not that only solution. Even he understands that in some situations, it's bad to clump. A different design fix is therefore: make it bad to clump more often. This one might require much more thought. Too hard.
|
This just seems like it would be a downgrade to SC2. Sure, it would APPEAR to be more like BW, but I think people need to give this idea up. We're making a new game, just split your units it's not that hard. You don't need to split EVERY unit to make things much better for you. Doesn't everyone want more micro? Wouldn't this lessen it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
