|
On November 24 2012 03:01 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 14:39 MikeMM wrote:On November 20 2012 02:34 Deckkie wrote:On November 19 2012 01:45 dragonsuper wrote:On November 19 2012 01:38 LOLingBuddha wrote:On November 19 2012 01:17 bole wrote:
I will not by HOTS if they dont change pathing... its so retarded and in WC3 you Have option to chose CLUMP PATHING OR SPREAD OUT PATHING....
i Dustin Browder think he is smartest person and he know what is good or not.. he dont understend the game what is wrong with it...
He is so RETARDED !!!!! I didnt play much of WC3 but i didnt know they had that option. seeing as they did have the option, what mode did the user opt for most? he came from C&C generals... one of the worst game of the series... what you expect ? B Didnt he also make RA2? arguably the best game of the series?I dont know of the pathing is a absolute problem. Units do die too fast in this game however. All deciding 30 second engaments is less than optimal. If this is due to the pathing it is a serious problem. It is however also possible that the units are just too high dps. Sometimes I feel like they made this game on normal speed, after realising this was too easy (and or slow) they changed it too fastest. And now there is a game where everything dies, and half the games are decided with a single missclick. Has RA2 or C&C had any success as eSport? browders games were all huge esport titels with perfect balance + Show Spoiler +
Have you played Battle for Middle Earth's multiplayer? Shit was the most unbalanced game I have ever witnessed. Basically everyone went as Rohan and trampled over everyone else's Infantry with cavalry. There were even very easily accessible spells that made pikemen completely useless, so horses owned everything.
|
On November 24 2012 06:26 Zombo Joe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 03:01 TaShadan wrote:On November 21 2012 14:39 MikeMM wrote:On November 20 2012 02:34 Deckkie wrote:On November 19 2012 01:45 dragonsuper wrote:On November 19 2012 01:38 LOLingBuddha wrote:On November 19 2012 01:17 bole wrote:
I will not by HOTS if they dont change pathing... its so retarded and in WC3 you Have option to chose CLUMP PATHING OR SPREAD OUT PATHING....
i Dustin Browder think he is smartest person and he know what is good or not.. he dont understend the game what is wrong with it...
He is so RETARDED !!!!! I didnt play much of WC3 but i didnt know they had that option. seeing as they did have the option, what mode did the user opt for most? he came from C&C generals... one of the worst game of the series... what you expect ? B Didnt he also make RA2? arguably the best game of the series?I dont know of the pathing is a absolute problem. Units do die too fast in this game however. All deciding 30 second engaments is less than optimal. If this is due to the pathing it is a serious problem. It is however also possible that the units are just too high dps. Sometimes I feel like they made this game on normal speed, after realising this was too easy (and or slow) they changed it too fastest. And now there is a game where everything dies, and half the games are decided with a single missclick. Has RA2 or C&C had any success as eSport? browders games were all huge esport titels with perfect balance + Show Spoiler + Have you played Battle for Middle Earth's multiplayer? Shit was the most unbalanced game I have ever witnessed. Basically everyone went as Rohan and trampled over everyone else's Infantry with cavalry. There were even very easily accessible spells that made pikemen completely useless, so horses owned everything.
Maybe that had something to do with the support Browder got from the dev as well.
|
On November 24 2012 07:21 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 06:26 Zombo Joe wrote:On November 24 2012 03:01 TaShadan wrote:On November 21 2012 14:39 MikeMM wrote:On November 20 2012 02:34 Deckkie wrote:On November 19 2012 01:45 dragonsuper wrote:On November 19 2012 01:38 LOLingBuddha wrote:On November 19 2012 01:17 bole wrote:
I will not by HOTS if they dont change pathing... its so retarded and in WC3 you Have option to chose CLUMP PATHING OR SPREAD OUT PATHING....
i Dustin Browder think he is smartest person and he know what is good or not.. he dont understend the game what is wrong with it...
He is so RETARDED !!!!! I didnt play much of WC3 but i didnt know they had that option. seeing as they did have the option, what mode did the user opt for most? he came from C&C generals... one of the worst game of the series... what you expect ? B Didnt he also make RA2? arguably the best game of the series?I dont know of the pathing is a absolute problem. Units do die too fast in this game however. All deciding 30 second engaments is less than optimal. If this is due to the pathing it is a serious problem. It is however also possible that the units are just too high dps. Sometimes I feel like they made this game on normal speed, after realising this was too easy (and or slow) they changed it too fastest. And now there is a game where everything dies, and half the games are decided with a single missclick. Has RA2 or C&C had any success as eSport? browders games were all huge esport titels with perfect balance + Show Spoiler + Have you played Battle for Middle Earth's multiplayer? Shit was the most unbalanced game I have ever witnessed. Basically everyone went as Rohan and trampled over everyone else's Infantry with cavalry. There were even very easily accessible spells that made pikemen completely useless, so horses owned everything. Maybe that had something to do with the support Browder got from the dev as well.
I think their is a difference in the amount of resources Blizzard gives for continious patching/balancing of the game compared to EA to say the least.
|
On November 24 2012 08:40 Seiniyta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 07:21 Deckkie wrote:On November 24 2012 06:26 Zombo Joe wrote:On November 24 2012 03:01 TaShadan wrote:On November 21 2012 14:39 MikeMM wrote:On November 20 2012 02:34 Deckkie wrote:On November 19 2012 01:45 dragonsuper wrote:On November 19 2012 01:38 LOLingBuddha wrote:On November 19 2012 01:17 bole wrote:
I will not by HOTS if they dont change pathing... its so retarded and in WC3 you Have option to chose CLUMP PATHING OR SPREAD OUT PATHING....
i Dustin Browder think he is smartest person and he know what is good or not.. he dont understend the game what is wrong with it...
He is so RETARDED !!!!! I didnt play much of WC3 but i didnt know they had that option. seeing as they did have the option, what mode did the user opt for most? he came from C&C generals... one of the worst game of the series... what you expect ? B Didnt he also make RA2? arguably the best game of the series?I dont know of the pathing is a absolute problem. Units do die too fast in this game however. All deciding 30 second engaments is less than optimal. If this is due to the pathing it is a serious problem. It is however also possible that the units are just too high dps. Sometimes I feel like they made this game on normal speed, after realising this was too easy (and or slow) they changed it too fastest. And now there is a game where everything dies, and half the games are decided with a single missclick. Has RA2 or C&C had any success as eSport? browders games were all huge esport titels with perfect balance + Show Spoiler + Have you played Battle for Middle Earth's multiplayer? Shit was the most unbalanced game I have ever witnessed. Basically everyone went as Rohan and trampled over everyone else's Infantry with cavalry. There were even very easily accessible spells that made pikemen completely useless, so horses owned everything. Maybe that had something to do with the support Browder got from the dev as well. I think their is a difference in the amount of resources Blizzard gives for continious patching/balancing of the game compared to EA to say the least.
Nope. If the "core concept" is as flawed as that of SC2, there is not a lot you can do with pure "unit balancing" as they are trying. The core concept of "more more more [units on the screen]" and "bigger bigger bigger [battles]" can never ever allow for MICRO, which is the ultimate skillcap for a player. Not even "Marine spreading" - which is the ONLY example that Blizzard / Browder fanboys are bringing for micro - is really micro, because it lacks precision.
You can TRY to fix the balance by inventing ever more complex rules and units, but that will make it even harder to keep the game balanced. The prime example is their idea to limit Fungal Growth to non-psionic units, which doesnt really make sense.
Such a "player skillcap" is what makes a game fun to watch, because builds can be copied by every monkey out there, but true microing skill cant. Sadly SC2 is more about resource management and tricking your opponent into bad builds than actually using the units well. Building the right stuff is more important in SC2 as well due to their core concept of "bonus damage"; sure there was something similar in BW as well, but it didnt dominate the unit stats as much as SC2. The easiest example is the Thor, which is supposed to be mech anti-air, but its only good against Mutalisks IF the opponent doesnt know about magic boxing. Against anything else in the air it is junk due to the bonus damage ...
Blizzard HAD TO invent several crutches to make this "tight infantry unit clump" system work:
- Forcefield
- Fungal Growth
... and all of these are terrible ideas.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On November 24 2012 02:52 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 21:51 Gaius Baltar wrote:
More than a little perplexed that he said there was no affect at all in their tests. Having played SC1, WC3, SC2, and some of the SC2 test maps people have made, I can say they all feel completely different. Both in terms of enjoyability during micro as well fun viewing, to me the current SC2 pathing is the worst of all the alternatives . Blizzard just tested ONE SMALL MODIFICATION - which probably wouldnt be enough anyways - AND which would have been one of roughly four adjustments necessary to tune SC2 down from the "deathball worship" to "strategic and microable play". 1. unit selection limit = 12 2. forced unit spread with microable stacking 3. removal of all production speed boosts 4. removal of the MULE (the one economic boost which isnt connected directly to production) So they HAD TO fail at finding something noticeable, but it also shows how much they dont know or dont care about the general gameplay. Until they fix this I think they are in "ignorance mode" + Show Spoiler +and you know that ignorance is bliss and think that they can fix and balance the game through unit abilities alone. This will make the game more and more complex as the "lets balance Fungal by limiting it to non-psionic units" idea shows, which is a bad idea because it takes away the control/choice from the player by "forcing him" to build unit X to hard-counter unit Y instead of being able to do it with anything he chooses. Less is more Blizzard! KISS
Man, everything you are saying about how to make SC2 more interesting to watch is so true.
I wish DB read this.
Almost 3 years have passed since the introduction of SC2 beta and many things now are clearer about SC2 mechanics.
So many things that were introduced in SC2 make this game less interesting to watch.
I remember that 2-3 years ago in some interview DB said that they wanted to make SC2 faster. Back then I didn’t pay much attention on these words.
Now I understand that Blizzard took completely wrong approach.
They should have tried to make this game more interesting to watch and to play instead of making it faster.
|
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
1) Dustin Browder claims blizzard tested it with no result
2) I recall hearing that HD also tested it, with no result
3) There are no games in this thread that I can find where there is any actual testing going, only unit vs unit videos.
4) The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, not the ones criticising them. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
5) Why the hateful attitude? Few of the people in here make games, Few of them test games whereas D Browder does both yet that seems to hold no relevance whatsoever. Why is that?
|
On November 26 2012 18:49 Fenris420 wrote:
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
It would matter for spectating, but I don't think it would matter for much else.
Browder argued about this on the SC2 forums and basically won.
|
On November 26 2012 19:10 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 18:49 Fenris420 wrote:
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
It would matter for spectating, but I don't think it would matter for much else. Browder argued about this on the SC2 forums and basically won.
Have either of you read the thread...??
If you had, you would know that DB made a post and people continued to disagree. But that pertains to the movement change where you just tweak the magic box number, which won't matter 90% of the time for ground units in SC2.
The discussion is about clumping and pathing and how that affects the game, with BW as a reference point for comparison. It's been laid out in detail throughout the thread how better pathing leads to clumping that is a default best-formation due to the superior DPS even in the face of AoE damage and godly micro.
Inferior pathing that strings out unit movement and requires micro to assemble a stationary tight clump provides defender advantage directly correlated to the degree of pathing spread and eliminates the very possibility of a deathball (which you should distinguish from an endgame push with a "perfect" army).
|
On November 26 2012 18:49 Fenris420 wrote:
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
1) Dustin Browder claims blizzard tested it with no result
2) I recall hearing that HD also tested it, with no result
3) There are no games in this thread that I can find where there is any actual testing going, only unit vs unit videos.
4) The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, not the ones criticising them. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
5) Why the hateful attitude? Few of the people in here make games, Few of them test games whereas D Browder does both yet that seems to hold no relevance whatsoever. Why is that?
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
Just look at the Stalker and the Marine. They both have somewhat "similar" dps [Stalker: 7 dps; Marine: 6.9 dps; SOURCE], BUT they differ in size. So it is logical that you can have a higher "dps per area" from a clump of Marines than you get from a clump of Stalkers and yet they start at the same individual dps. That is not debatable and based on math, but what you can have an "opinion" on is if it affects the gameplay negatively or not. The "units per 1 square" is not a value we have, because the size really isnt a known value. So there cant really be precise calculations as to how high the unit density "dps per area" is for each unit unless Blizzard does it. You might be able to create a tiny map and completely fill it with units of type X and then count them, but thats a braindead work I am not willing to do. The point is that there is a big "uncertainty factor" injected into the game balance and this cant be good.
Tight clumps of units have also nerfed Siege Tanks somewhat from their BW version, to the point that you might be able to kill a Siege Tank with some infantry without even losing a single unit yourself. In BW it was rather impossible to get 20 Marines into range of a Siege Tank without taking at least one shot and having a Marine or two die in the process, BUT the "perfectly tight" unit movement allows for far greater numbers of Marines to bum rush the tank - who gets 1 shot off without killing any unit (yay ... 35 damage vs. non-armored doesnt even kill a Marine and barely kills a Zergling!!) - and kill it in the blink of an eye. This is basically the downfall of mech, because the backbone unit can be rushed by too many units far too fast and killed without many losses. With a limited number of units in a control group AND forcing them to spread out while moving, you couldnt bring that many infantry in range easily, so you would actually need to think about how to do it.
If you increase the combat values of the Siege Tank (either health or damage output ... doesnt really matter which) you will make the tank far too powerful in a "few vs few" situation. This clearly shows that it is a terrible idea to have a big difference in balancing between "few vs. few" and "many vs many". Unit density is at the core here and it should NOT be impossible to get a high unit density, BUT it should come at a cost (potentially losing a big chunk to AoE) AND require work from the player instead of coming "automatically".
4) Both sides have claimed a lot of things, so you cant really argue that way.
5) With people unwilling (I dont want to be insulting, so I dont say "incapable") to see the reason why automatically tight unit clumping is a bad idea [explained again under 0 above] AND getting the same dumb retorts+ Show Spoiler +- You dont work at Blizzard, so you dont know everything you need to know about the game. <- If that was a requirement for thinking about the game and forming an opinion we should rather close down TL and all other fansites and just become happy little consumer-zombies without using our brain for thinking.
- I trust in Blizzard/Dustin Browder. <- Blind faith in a leader has never been a good thing. You have to ALWAYS think about what he/they is/are doing and if things go badly you need to say STOP. Thinking about stuff and possibilities is GOOD, because it EXERCISES YOUR BRAIN!
- Just play BW then. <- [CENSORED]
- You gave no clear argument. <- I have explained it so many times and they most often read all of them and yet didnt understand it. Thats a depressing thought, because its actually very easy to understand.
- I like the deathball. <- This is the only valid albeit rather simplistic retort.
In addition I really hate the PROPAGANDA that "deathball is good for casuals" ... which it clearly isnt.
a. Casuals are overwhelmed by the sheer number of units and forcing them to a 12 unit limit per control group makes it easier.
b. No casual can split his Marines like MarineKing; every casual can a-move a bunch of Banelings into a group of Marines and annihilate them.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
I would like to add that when army supply in SC2 is from 60 to 100 there are no many clumped units and ironically max number of selected units is around 12 progamers can produce very interesting games.
On IEM Singapore Grand Finals between Grubby and Sting in game 3 on Cloud Kingdom there was beautiful micro and that game was awesome.
The problem is that with production boosts and high income rate armies very quickly reach 200/200 thus creating deathballs with clumped up units and battle between two deathballs lasts only 10-20 seconds.
|
In response to the OP, micro your units.
|
On November 26 2012 21:19 Parcelleus wrote:
In response to the OP, micro your units.
Really smart response ... NOT.
The problem with SC2 is that "micro your units" is required in different amounts for the races.
- compare Marines vs Banelings ... using Banelings is easy, splitting Marines against that is hard; it also pushes the required micro on the side of the defender and thus gives the attacker a distinct advantage in addition to already choosing the place for the engagement. Terrible idea and defenders advantage is basically a requirement for an RTS to even up the advantages.
- Protoss have their Forcefield and Blink micro early on, but what have the other two races?
- How easy is killing units in these tight clumps with Fungal? Really easy! Compared to the counter it is too efficient.
|
On November 26 2012 20:10 Rabiator wrote:
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
This is the silliest thing I have read in this entire thread. There is a reason that you do experiments... not everything plays out in reality the same way that it does while theory-crafting in your head. This is not "proof", it's opinion, and will be that until we actually have a video of people playing against each other with the "better" pathing/clumping.
SC2 is a different game. It can't and shouldn't be the same as Brood War.
If you're going to make the claim that things like limited unit selection, "bad" pathing, and less clumping would make SC2 a better game, you have to show the evidence for it. That's it. Show a video of 2 people playing with the clumping, and show a clear place where it made the players "micro more" or made tanks "more powerful" or whatever your argument is. If internal testing showed not a huge change, I trust it.
|
On November 26 2012 18:49 Fenris420 wrote:
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
1) Dustin Browder claims blizzard tested it with no result
2) I recall hearing that HD also tested it, with no result
3) There are no games in this thread that I can find where there is any actual testing going, only unit vs unit videos.
4) The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, not the ones criticising them. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
5) Why the hateful attitude? Few of the people in here make games, Few of them test games whereas D Browder does both yet that seems to hold no relevance whatsoever. Why is that?
1) His test is clearly retarded. They allow UI tweaks to make it easier to spread but it's still optimal to clump up due to small unit size + long range. Therefore people chose to clump instead of spread.
2) Link please. Can't comment on this one, don't know it.
3) See BW.
4) This might be a fallacy (depending how you define 'extraordinary'. There are different applications with Bayes' Rule.)
5) Because he's stupid. He doesn't even understand the criticisms people are making. Case in point: he thinks people are asking for UI tweaks when what they want is a good reason to spread out.
Edit: 4)
|
On November 26 2012 19:23 EatThePath wrote:
The discussion is about clumping and pathing and how that affects the game, with BW as a reference point for comparison. It's been laid out in detail throughout the thread how better pathing leads to clumping that is a default best-formation due to the superior DPS even in the face of AoE damage and godly micro.
But if units were ALLOWED to fall into that position at all, it would always be chosen to do so, as it has the DPS advantage. The only exception would be against AoE, but you can still split your units in SC2, it just takes more effort.
On November 26 2012 19:23 EatThePath wrote:
Inferior pathing that strings out unit movement and requires micro to assemble a stationary tight clump provides defender advantage directly correlated to the degree of pathing spread and eliminates the very possibility of a deathball (which you should distinguish from an endgame push with a "perfect" army).
This sounds like a much bigger overhaul than Blizzard is prepared to attempt at this stage, but I would be interested to see them try.
|
Am I the only one who's not bothered by deathballs? While I agree that they need to be broken up, I think that they will start to do this on their own, ESPECIALLY with the new changes in HOTS. Just think of how effective protoss harass is, now with the oracle and tempest. This will definitely discourage protoss deathballing imo. Also, thanks to widow mines, death balls, at least against terran, are not very viable until the late late game. Not only this, but terran units don't deathball well, due to the frailty of marines, the immobility of mech, and the cost of air terran. The get torn apart by well-placed storms/feedbacks, and melted by colossi. Zerg has an equally easy time destroying terran deathballs. This means that neither protoss or terran should be deathballing very much once the game develops a bit more.
As for zerg, I think the problem is trickier. We need to definitely nerf fungal growth. I think making it like plague would do this quite nicely. As for infested terran, just make it cost 50, spawn two infested terrans, and have a cooldown. This would allow it to still be effective with small groups of infestors, but not powerful with many of them. Also, zerg units aren't currently very mobile, with the exception of lings and mutas, which I think makes them less effective for harass. As a result, I would recommend the hydra upgrade being moved to lair, and maybe the reworking of the infestor or the viper into a harassment unit rather than a combat spellcaster. This would give zerg more harassment options. With these options, one could definitely nerf broodling fire rate (but give DPS a buff, because currently banshees have higher dps than brood lords + broodlings combined) along turning fungal growth into plague.
|
On November 26 2012 19:10 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 18:49 Fenris420 wrote:
Does anyone have an actual proof that unit formation and/or movement matters?
It would matter for spectating, but I don't think it would matter for much else. Browder argued about this on the SC2 forums and basically won.
He won how? Because he's a dev? His pedigree is from effing command and conquer. Browder either intentionally misunderstands (I think this is the case) or is too dumb to understand the real complaints people have about unit movement. He just doesn't want to admit people don't like something he does because it's a huge part of SC 2 now and would require lots of work. That would be really humbling for him and his team.
|
On November 27 2012 03:42 TheSambassador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 20:10 Rabiator wrote:
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
This is the silliest thing I have read in this entire thread. There is a reason that you do experiments... not everything plays out in reality the same way that it does while theory-crafting in your head. This is not "proof", it's opinion, and will be that until we actually have a video of people playing against each other with the "better" pathing/clumping. SC2 is a different game. It can't and shouldn't be the same as Brood War. If you're going to make the claim that things like limited unit selection, "bad" pathing, and less clumping would make SC2 a better game, you have to show the evidence for it. That's it. Show a video of 2 people playing with the clumping, and show a clear place where it made the players "micro more" or made tanks "more powerful" or whatever your argument is. If internal testing showed not a huge change, I trust it.
You fell straight into the category @Rabiator described in point 5. Well done, you provided no counterargument. You do not have to argue every point you make with a video (unless you are trying to explain something to illogical human beings). The dps density for a marine ball is definitely higher than that of a stalker ball of the same size. Please explain why high dps density and clumping are good for sc2 with actual counterarguments so that we can have a useful discussion.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On November 27 2012 03:42 TheSambassador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 20:10 Rabiator wrote:
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
Show a video of 2 people playing with the clumping, and show a clear place where it made the players "micro more" or made tanks "more powerful" or whatever your argument is. If internal testing showed not a huge change, I trust it.
Yesterday on TL there were several streams of BW. And in these games units didn’t clump up.
|
On November 27 2012 03:42 TheSambassador wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 20:10 Rabiator wrote:
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
This is the silliest thing I have read in this entire thread. There is a reason that you do experiments... not everything plays out in reality the same way that it does while theory-crafting in your head. This is not "proof", it's opinion, and will be that until we actually have a video of people playing against each other with the "better" pathing/clumping. SC2 is a different game. It can't and shouldn't be the same as Brood War. If you're going to make the claim that things like limited unit selection, "bad" pathing, and less clumping would make SC2 a better game, you have to show the evidence for it. That's it. Show a video of 2 people playing with the clumping, and show a clear place where it made the players "micro more" or made tanks "more powerful" or whatever your argument is. If internal testing showed not a huge change, I trust it.
"Better" is subject to opinion, so no one can show you a video proving it.
The one thing I can give you is an example of a tough unit POSSIBLY being too powerful when it comes out early.
AugustWeRRa vs. oGsLeader ... GSL 1
Obviously Spunky didnt have enough Stalkers to deal with the BC, but thats the whole point. If you made the Siege Tank more powerful to be more effective in the late game he could easily deal with few opposing units in the early game. You clearly didnt exercise your brain, because you say yourself that you didnt understand this argument ... and yet you tell me that I am wrong?
Oh and I dont have to show you anything if you dont want to exercise your brain. Do you really need me to make a video - which I cant, since I dont have the means to do it - of showing a screen full of Stalkers and counting them and then doing the same for Marines to accept that Marines stack tighter than Stalkers? Really? How this greater density of units affects a fight does NOT require a video, just some thinking about it.
- Stalkers and Marines have the same dps individually
- more Marines pack into the same area as do Stalkers
- Dustin Browder has said it himself in one of the two interviews that players WANT to have tightly packed units because it is more efficient
- since Marines cost 50 minerals and Stalkers cost 125/50 you get roughly 3 Marines per Stalker AND you can have all of them fight due to the tight clumping. End result: Terran has 3 times the dps of the Protoss available and Protos HAS TO make up for it with the crutches of Forcefield and Blink. (Stalkers are a bit more durable than Marines to make up for the lower dps, but Medivacs kinda make up for that comparatively low durability of the Marines.) That works fine to a degree at pro-level, but what about casuals?
- logical conclusion: crutches should be taken out of the game and the relative increase in dps has to be cut off at some point by limiting the number of units selected and by making them spread out while moving.
"Different game" is an extremely stupid argument, because it might be true at a basic level, but SC2 is a SEQUEL and part of its success is owed to the success of the predecessor AND both games are linked through the story. Kinda silly to argue that it should be totally different and in that case it should have been about Argosian fruitflys battling it out with the Zarthan cows and Martian farmers and not Terrans, Protoss and Zerg.
I am not saying that SC2 makes people "micro more"; quite the contrary ... it makes them micro LESS. Thats rather easy to understand, because you have the ez-mode-1-selection-group-to-rule-them-all controls. Just a 1a is enough and thats terrible.
On November 27 2012 14:37 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 03:42 TheSambassador wrote:On November 26 2012 20:10 Rabiator wrote:
0. Your brain [basic math plus a little imagination and extrapolation skill] can give you "proof" that density of the units matters and affects the game.
Show a video of 2 people playing with the clumping, and show a clear place where it made the players "micro more" or made tanks "more powerful" or whatever your argument is. If internal testing showed not a huge change, I trust it. Yesterday on TL there were several streams of BW. And in these games units didn’t clump up.
I think he totally didnt understand anything and thinks that I am saying "clumping makes people micro more" - which it doesnt. BW movement and the 12 units per control group makes people micro more, because every unit is important and not the "clump dps". It is the "2 Zerglings vs. 2 Zerglings" example which I always give; when you see such a battle and one player wins the fight and kept both his Zerglings alive you have seen true micro. With 200 army clumps it is just "shift a big chunk of units into a better concave"-boring kind of micro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
