Dustin Browder tested this already and decided it was a waste of time. There's no way Blizzard is going to change unit pathing or clumping without his full support so this whole post seems to be in vain. I personally think a change that would lower the skill cap by limiting micro(splitting) is not beneficial for eSports. The best players split their units when necessary and clump them when it is appropriate. Everyone begging for this change is wasting their breath.
On December 09 2012 16:14 Ewok wrote: Dustin Browder tested this already and decided it was a waste of time. There's no way Blizzard is going to change unit pathing or clumping without his full support so this whole post seems to be in vain. I personally think a change that would lower the skill cap by limiting micro(splitting) can be beneficial for eSports. The best players split their units when necessary and clump them when it is appropriate. Everyone begging for this change is wasting their breath.
Oh come on ... "splitting units" isnt the only micro in existence and force-spreading units will add a new kind of micro which would be required of ALL RACEs - and not just Terrans - to actively clump units together into the efficient tight formation instead of getting that for free. To me that wouldnt be "dumbing down" the game but rather increase the skill cap for players.
It has also been said that the "testing" which DB and his crew did wasnt really "valid", because spreading out the units is only one thing that would have to be changed ...
The method described in the original post isn't really effective. What I think is important now is that many in the community have issues with how the movement / clumping works in SC2. The community and blizzard need to come up with and test ways that are better.
On November 30 2012 17:03 slytown wrote: Um, the unit movement is intended to make you pull units into a concave/separate positions. It's called micro. Stop whining to Blizzard about everything and make the effort to get better.
I'm a diamond player and it erks me how simple user fixes or practice can eliminate the problems with HoTS and WoL everyone talks about.
Oh please ... shoving around your clumps of units isnt the "pinnacle of micro", but we could have A LOT MORE to micro if the movement system was changed AND you would still be able to "micro" your units into a concave, but with additional micro added to the game. Thats one of the points of the discussion here and the other is "balancing is made unnecessarily hard through too many units in the battles" and another is "tight clumps of units are ugly and harder to understand for a viewer".
Basically you have said that you are AGAINST adding more micro to the game by keeping its "autoclumping stupidity".
On November 30 2012 14:41 iamcaustic wrote:
On November 30 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:
On November 30 2012 13:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 30 2012 06:48 wcr.4fun wrote:
On November 23 2012 11:47 Firkraag8 wrote: I don't like the idea of changing the way movement is handled as shown in the videos. I see the manual splitting of units as not only fun to watch but also to play.
do some fucking research on bw please. So you got your marine splitting in sc2. I can name one unit and already equalize the scale, hydralisk storm dodging with 3-4 groups of hydralisks is just as hard in bw.
And now to tip the scale into favour of broodwar, you've also got mutalisk micro, scourge micro, wraith micro, marine splitting micro vs lurkers, carrier micro, dragoon vs mine micro, vulture micro,........
First of all, chill out. He isn't hurling insults at BW or anything. Second of all, we're talking about a pathing change here. Not various micro techniques that have everything to do with bugs (good ones, of course) and nothing to do with spread out pathing.
The micro in BW was required NOT because of bugs, but because of the movement system ... which in itself was NOT a bug. It was clunky, but thats not the same as a bug.
Carrier micro was actually only possible due to glitches. Mutalisk micro vs. scourge also incorporated glitches. This is why these units cannot be micromanaged the same way in SC2. They definitely have everything to do with bugs like AnachronisticAnarchy said. You also need to chill out, by the way.
A glitch isnt the same as a bug ... using those glitches tool SKILL and thus they were a good addition to the game.
One rather wise rock musician once said something like this: "If you have a bad day and dont hit the right note at one part of the song you better make the same mistake again later on so you can say that was on purpose." So glitch or no glitch is part of the perspective.
I dont get to chill out, because of posts like the one I quoted above. People who seem to claim to be "pro micro" and who seem to have no clue about BW and the necessary micro an unclumped movement would have.
Ah, if you want to get into details about difference between glitch and bug, then change my usage of "glitch" to "bug". After all, a glitch is generally a temporary and quickly rectified mistake in a program's function, while a bug is a mistake due to the actual code, and is possible to replicate 100%.
I was just using the terms synonymously out of laziness. Either way, AnachronisticAnarchy was still completely correct.
I could start a "definition duel" by saying that the glitches werent removed from BW, so they became features of the game, but that is not the point. The point rather is that - looking at the "Carrier Micro thread there seem to be some small hints that Blizzard is looking to change that unit to include just such "glitch micro" OR something similar. Maybe they will see that nothing changes due to the tight clumps of Marines and Hydralsks and thats hopefully when they will understand the damage tight clumping does to the game. I dont get my hopes high though, but we cant stop asking for better pathing ...
Eh? Blizzard's own game guide says to make marines and hydralisks to counter-act Carriers. That's not a side effect of AI pathing in SC2, that's a deliberate design from Blizzard. You're still free to consider it silly, but the reason is different.
The point is that the super tight clumps of ground units make big air units rather useless. If you have 5 Hydras it might be viable to use one Carrier or BC against them and the battle would be even, BUT if you have 40 Marines they will shoot down any Carrier/BC in no time. Broodlords are the exception, because they bring their own "protective screen" of free ground units and they have the support of Fungal for crowd control as well ...
----
A slight addendum from the "archives" of Blizzard ... patch 1.5.2:
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty – Patch 1.5.2 Bug Fixes
General
Pathing has been adjusted. Units will once again take the most optimal route to their destinations.
So Blizzard isnt unwilling to change the pathing in general ... the only problem is convincing them that super tight formations make the game worse (see above).
On December 09 2012 16:14 Ewok wrote: Dustin Browder tested this already and decided it was a waste of time. There's no way Blizzard is going to change unit pathing or clumping without his full support so this whole post seems to be in vain. I personally think a change that would lower the skill cap by limiting micro(splitting) can be beneficial for eSports. The best players split their units when necessary and clump them when it is appropriate. Everyone begging for this change is wasting their breath.
Oh come on ... "splitting units" isnt the only micro in existence and force-spreading units will add a new kind of micro which would be required of ALL RACEs - and not just Terrans - to actively clump units together into the efficient tight formation instead of getting that for free. To me that wouldnt be "dumbing down" the game but rather increase the skill cap for players.
It has also been said that the "testing" which DB and his crew did wasnt really "valid", because spreading out the units is only one thing that would have to be changed ...
I never said that splitting is the only micro in the game. I don't know how you read that from my post. To me when you simply A-move you want your units clumped, as that is the best way for balls of ranged units to achieve maximum dps, while splitting is an easy tactic to learn but difficult to master, like any part of starcraft should be. This mechanic will never change anyway so im wasting my time defending my point here.
On November 30 2012 17:03 slytown wrote: Um, the unit movement is intended to make you pull units into a concave/separate positions. It's called micro. Stop whining to Blizzard about everything and make the effort to get better.
I'm a diamond player and it erks me how simple user fixes or practice can eliminate the problems with HoTS and WoL everyone talks about.
Oh please ... shoving around your clumps of units isnt the "pinnacle of micro", but we could have A LOT MORE to micro if the movement system was changed AND you would still be able to "micro" your units into a concave, but with additional micro added to the game. Thats one of the points of the discussion here and the other is "balancing is made unnecessarily hard through too many units in the battles" and another is "tight clumps of units are ugly and harder to understand for a viewer".
Basically you have said that you are AGAINST adding more micro to the game by keeping its "autoclumping stupidity".
On November 30 2012 14:41 iamcaustic wrote:
On November 30 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:
On November 30 2012 13:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 30 2012 06:48 wcr.4fun wrote:
On November 23 2012 11:47 Firkraag8 wrote: I don't like the idea of changing the way movement is handled as shown in the videos. I see the manual splitting of units as not only fun to watch but also to play.
do some fucking research on bw please. So you got your marine splitting in sc2. I can name one unit and already equalize the scale, hydralisk storm dodging with 3-4 groups of hydralisks is just as hard in bw.
And now to tip the scale into favour of broodwar, you've also got mutalisk micro, scourge micro, wraith micro, marine splitting micro vs lurkers, carrier micro, dragoon vs mine micro, vulture micro,........
First of all, chill out. He isn't hurling insults at BW or anything. Second of all, we're talking about a pathing change here. Not various micro techniques that have everything to do with bugs (good ones, of course) and nothing to do with spread out pathing.
The micro in BW was required NOT because of bugs, but because of the movement system ... which in itself was NOT a bug. It was clunky, but thats not the same as a bug.
Carrier micro was actually only possible due to glitches. Mutalisk micro vs. scourge also incorporated glitches. This is why these units cannot be micromanaged the same way in SC2. They definitely have everything to do with bugs like AnachronisticAnarchy said. You also need to chill out, by the way.
A glitch isnt the same as a bug ... using those glitches tool SKILL and thus they were a good addition to the game.
One rather wise rock musician once said something like this: "If you have a bad day and dont hit the right note at one part of the song you better make the same mistake again later on so you can say that was on purpose." So glitch or no glitch is part of the perspective.
I dont get to chill out, because of posts like the one I quoted above. People who seem to claim to be "pro micro" and who seem to have no clue about BW and the necessary micro an unclumped movement would have.
Ah, if you want to get into details about difference between glitch and bug, then change my usage of "glitch" to "bug". After all, a glitch is generally a temporary and quickly rectified mistake in a program's function, while a bug is a mistake due to the actual code, and is possible to replicate 100%.
I was just using the terms synonymously out of laziness. Either way, AnachronisticAnarchy was still completely correct.
I could start a "definition duel" by saying that the glitches werent removed from BW, so they became features of the game, but that is not the point. The point rather is that - looking at the "Carrier Micro thread there seem to be some small hints that Blizzard is looking to change that unit to include just such "glitch micro" OR something similar. Maybe they will see that nothing changes due to the tight clumps of Marines and Hydralsks and thats hopefully when they will understand the damage tight clumping does to the game. I dont get my hopes high though, but we cant stop asking for better pathing ...
Eh? Blizzard's own game guide says to make marines and hydralisks to counter-act Carriers. That's not a side effect of AI pathing in SC2, that's a deliberate design from Blizzard. You're still free to consider it silly, but the reason is different.
The point is that the super tight clumps of ground units make big air units rather useless. If you have 5 Hydras it might be viable to use one Carrier or BC against them and the battle would be even, BUT if you have 40 Marines they will shoot down any Carrier/BC in no time. Broodlords are the exception, because they bring their own "protective screen" of free ground units and they have the support of Fungal for crowd control as well ...
----
A slight addendum from the "archives" of Blizzard ... patch 1.5.2:
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty – Patch 1.5.2 Bug Fixes
General
Pathing has been adjusted. Units will once again take the most optimal route to their destinations.
So Blizzard isnt unwilling to change the pathing in general ... the only problem is convincing them that super tight formations make the game worse (see above).
they tried the fix in the video but it made no difference. That is because people don't issue 1 a click right across the map, they do it in a series of small ones, which instantly make the units clump again.
I also agree that splitting your units has become a skill needed to beat players in sc2 and thats a good thing. Everyone is always complaining about how there is no micro in sc2 then wants to remove something that creates the need to micro better...... thats funny to me.
On December 09 2012 16:14 Ewok wrote: Dustin Browder tested this already and decided it was a waste of time. There's no way Blizzard is going to change unit pathing or clumping without his full support so this whole post seems to be in vain. I personally think a change that would lower the skill cap by limiting micro(splitting) can be beneficial for eSports. The best players split their units when necessary and clump them when it is appropriate. Everyone begging for this change is wasting their breath.
Oh come on ... "splitting units" isnt the only micro in existence and force-spreading units will add a new kind of micro which would be required of ALL RACEs - and not just Terrans - to actively clump units together into the efficient tight formation instead of getting that for free. To me that wouldnt be "dumbing down" the game but rather increase the skill cap for players.
It has also been said that the "testing" which DB and his crew did wasnt really "valid", because spreading out the units is only one thing that would have to be changed ...
In high level games, there are more situations where you'll want to spread/split your units than situations where you'll want to clump them up. Avoiding/mitigating AoE and getting a better concave are key aspects to winning a large engagement. I recommend watching SortOf vs. HyuN during this weekend's NASL grand finals. Perfect demonstration of a pro player completely crushing the favourite to win with a superior concave (army split into multiple groups before moving in) and mitigating the opponent's fungals.
Also, what's the source regarding the response to Blizzard's testing? I hope it's a better source than some random guy posting on some forums without valid evidence.
On November 30 2012 17:03 slytown wrote: Um, the unit movement is intended to make you pull units into a concave/separate positions. It's called micro. Stop whining to Blizzard about everything and make the effort to get better.
I'm a diamond player and it erks me how simple user fixes or practice can eliminate the problems with HoTS and WoL everyone talks about.
Oh please ... shoving around your clumps of units isnt the "pinnacle of micro", but we could have A LOT MORE to micro if the movement system was changed AND you would still be able to "micro" your units into a concave, but with additional micro added to the game. Thats one of the points of the discussion here and the other is "balancing is made unnecessarily hard through too many units in the battles" and another is "tight clumps of units are ugly and harder to understand for a viewer".
Basically you have said that you are AGAINST adding more micro to the game by keeping its "autoclumping stupidity".
On November 30 2012 14:41 iamcaustic wrote:
On November 30 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:
On November 30 2012 13:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 30 2012 06:48 wcr.4fun wrote:
On November 23 2012 11:47 Firkraag8 wrote: I don't like the idea of changing the way movement is handled as shown in the videos. I see the manual splitting of units as not only fun to watch but also to play.
do some fucking research on bw please. So you got your marine splitting in sc2. I can name one unit and already equalize the scale, hydralisk storm dodging with 3-4 groups of hydralisks is just as hard in bw.
And now to tip the scale into favour of broodwar, you've also got mutalisk micro, scourge micro, wraith micro, marine splitting micro vs lurkers, carrier micro, dragoon vs mine micro, vulture micro,........
First of all, chill out. He isn't hurling insults at BW or anything. Second of all, we're talking about a pathing change here. Not various micro techniques that have everything to do with bugs (good ones, of course) and nothing to do with spread out pathing.
The micro in BW was required NOT because of bugs, but because of the movement system ... which in itself was NOT a bug. It was clunky, but thats not the same as a bug.
Carrier micro was actually only possible due to glitches. Mutalisk micro vs. scourge also incorporated glitches. This is why these units cannot be micromanaged the same way in SC2. They definitely have everything to do with bugs like AnachronisticAnarchy said. You also need to chill out, by the way.
A glitch isnt the same as a bug ... using those glitches tool SKILL and thus they were a good addition to the game.
One rather wise rock musician once said something like this: "If you have a bad day and dont hit the right note at one part of the song you better make the same mistake again later on so you can say that was on purpose." So glitch or no glitch is part of the perspective.
I dont get to chill out, because of posts like the one I quoted above. People who seem to claim to be "pro micro" and who seem to have no clue about BW and the necessary micro an unclumped movement would have.
Ah, if you want to get into details about difference between glitch and bug, then change my usage of "glitch" to "bug". After all, a glitch is generally a temporary and quickly rectified mistake in a program's function, while a bug is a mistake due to the actual code, and is possible to replicate 100%.
I was just using the terms synonymously out of laziness. Either way, AnachronisticAnarchy was still completely correct.
I could start a "definition duel" by saying that the glitches werent removed from BW, so they became features of the game, but that is not the point. The point rather is that - looking at the "Carrier Micro thread there seem to be some small hints that Blizzard is looking to change that unit to include just such "glitch micro" OR something similar. Maybe they will see that nothing changes due to the tight clumps of Marines and Hydralsks and thats hopefully when they will understand the damage tight clumping does to the game. I dont get my hopes high though, but we cant stop asking for better pathing ...
Eh? Blizzard's own game guide says to make marines and hydralisks to counter-act Carriers. That's not a side effect of AI pathing in SC2, that's a deliberate design from Blizzard. You're still free to consider it silly, but the reason is different.
The point is that the super tight clumps of ground units make big air units rather useless. If you have 5 Hydras it might be viable to use one Carrier or BC against them and the battle would be even, BUT if you have 40 Marines they will shoot down any Carrier/BC in no time. Broodlords are the exception, because they bring their own "protective screen" of free ground units and they have the support of Fungal for crowd control as well ...
Aaaggghhhh... so apparently you don't play late game TvT against bio Terran. Upgraded BCs simply don't die to marines, it's crazy. If your BCs are 0/0 against upgraded marines though, then sure you're in for some pain. If you think that BCs aren't viable at all in WoL, then you need to actually start playing the game.
The Carrier is kinda lame in WoL because air play in general kinda sucks, plus Carrier leash targeting in WoL is kinda bugged (this is fixed in the latest HotS patch). Everyone knows the Carrier has been underwhelming, but it's not because of mass marine or mass hydralisk.
On December 09 2012 18:37 Rabiator wrote: A slight addendum from the "archives" of Blizzard ... patch 1.5.2:
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty – Patch 1.5.2 Bug Fixes
General
Pathing has been adjusted. Units will once again take the most optimal route to their destinations.
So Blizzard isnt unwilling to change the pathing in general ... the only problem is convincing them that super tight formations make the game worse (see above).
You have to be kidding me. Bug fixes aren't the same as altering the fundamental way pathing works in the game. There was a bug that caused units to sometimes take a less efficient path instead of the most efficient one, which is the intended design of AI pathing in SC2. Note how the patch note states "units will once again take the most optimal route". An earlier patch introduced a bug in the pathing, and Blizzard fixed that bug.
The overall goal is to get rid of the deathball and to make the interesting and expensive units more important in the game. Super tight groups of infantry kill expensive units far too quickly to be able to react/run away/get saved by repairs unless they are part of a huge clump themselves. This forced clumping and too high efficiency is the reason for the lack of positional play and the success of the deathball.
On December 09 2012 16:14 Ewok wrote: Dustin Browder tested this already and decided it was a waste of time. There's no way Blizzard is going to change unit pathing or clumping without his full support so this whole post seems to be in vain. I personally think a change that would lower the skill cap by limiting micro(splitting) can be beneficial for eSports. The best players split their units when necessary and clump them when it is appropriate. Everyone begging for this change is wasting their breath.
Oh come on ... "splitting units" isnt the only micro in existence and force-spreading units will add a new kind of micro which would be required of ALL RACEs - and not just Terrans - to actively clump units together into the efficient tight formation instead of getting that for free. To me that wouldnt be "dumbing down" the game but rather increase the skill cap for players.
It has also been said that the "testing" which DB and his crew did wasnt really "valid", because spreading out the units is only one thing that would have to be changed ...
In high level games, there are more situations where you'll want to spread/split your units than situations where you'll want to clump them up. Avoiding/mitigating AoE and getting a better concave are key aspects to winning a large engagement. I recommend watching SortOf vs. HyuN during this weekend's NASL grand finals. Perfect demonstration of a pro player completely crushing the favourite to win with a superior concave (army split into multiple groups before moving in) and mitigating the opponent's fungals.
Also, what's the source regarding the response to Blizzard's testing? I hope it's a better source than some random guy posting on some forums without valid evidence.
Oh come on ... now you are back to "evidence", eh? How could anyone "prove" that Dustins test was useless and bound to fail before all the components were implemented? You guys really need to learn to think more!
Just use your brain, because with forced spreading of units while moving you need to readjust AoE damage and the simple mod Dustin tested just had a slight ... very slight ... adjustment to movement. With forced spreading while moving you could also have the opposite situation of the one you described ... that pros are good when they know how and when to clump their units for a concentrated attack ... but then I think you didnt bother reading my post, because thats exactly what I said then. The big point is that Dustin doesnt get the point which spreading the units and a "wiggly" movement like BW would have.
See below for another thing that would have to be changed.
On November 30 2012 17:03 slytown wrote: Um, the unit movement is intended to make you pull units into a concave/separate positions. It's called micro. Stop whining to Blizzard about everything and make the effort to get better.
I'm a diamond player and it erks me how simple user fixes or practice can eliminate the problems with HoTS and WoL everyone talks about.
Oh please ... shoving around your clumps of units isnt the "pinnacle of micro", but we could have A LOT MORE to micro if the movement system was changed AND you would still be able to "micro" your units into a concave, but with additional micro added to the game. Thats one of the points of the discussion here and the other is "balancing is made unnecessarily hard through too many units in the battles" and another is "tight clumps of units are ugly and harder to understand for a viewer".
Basically you have said that you are AGAINST adding more micro to the game by keeping its "autoclumping stupidity".
On November 30 2012 14:41 iamcaustic wrote:
On November 30 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:
On November 30 2012 13:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 30 2012 06:48 wcr.4fun wrote: [quote]
do some fucking research on bw please. So you got your marine splitting in sc2. I can name one unit and already equalize the scale, hydralisk storm dodging with 3-4 groups of hydralisks is just as hard in bw.
And now to tip the scale into favour of broodwar, you've also got mutalisk micro, scourge micro, wraith micro, marine splitting micro vs lurkers, carrier micro, dragoon vs mine micro, vulture micro,........
First of all, chill out. He isn't hurling insults at BW or anything. Second of all, we're talking about a pathing change here. Not various micro techniques that have everything to do with bugs (good ones, of course) and nothing to do with spread out pathing.
The micro in BW was required NOT because of bugs, but because of the movement system ... which in itself was NOT a bug. It was clunky, but thats not the same as a bug.
Carrier micro was actually only possible due to glitches. Mutalisk micro vs. scourge also incorporated glitches. This is why these units cannot be micromanaged the same way in SC2. They definitely have everything to do with bugs like AnachronisticAnarchy said. You also need to chill out, by the way.
A glitch isnt the same as a bug ... using those glitches tool SKILL and thus they were a good addition to the game.
One rather wise rock musician once said something like this: "If you have a bad day and dont hit the right note at one part of the song you better make the same mistake again later on so you can say that was on purpose." So glitch or no glitch is part of the perspective.
I dont get to chill out, because of posts like the one I quoted above. People who seem to claim to be "pro micro" and who seem to have no clue about BW and the necessary micro an unclumped movement would have.
Ah, if you want to get into details about difference between glitch and bug, then change my usage of "glitch" to "bug". After all, a glitch is generally a temporary and quickly rectified mistake in a program's function, while a bug is a mistake due to the actual code, and is possible to replicate 100%.
I was just using the terms synonymously out of laziness. Either way, AnachronisticAnarchy was still completely correct.
I could start a "definition duel" by saying that the glitches werent removed from BW, so they became features of the game, but that is not the point. The point rather is that - looking at the "Carrier Micro thread there seem to be some small hints that Blizzard is looking to change that unit to include just such "glitch micro" OR something similar. Maybe they will see that nothing changes due to the tight clumps of Marines and Hydralsks and thats hopefully when they will understand the damage tight clumping does to the game. I dont get my hopes high though, but we cant stop asking for better pathing ...
Eh? Blizzard's own game guide says to make marines and hydralisks to counter-act Carriers. That's not a side effect of AI pathing in SC2, that's a deliberate design from Blizzard. You're still free to consider it silly, but the reason is different.
The point is that the super tight clumps of ground units make big air units rather useless. If you have 5 Hydras it might be viable to use one Carrier or BC against them and the battle would be even, BUT if you have 40 Marines they will shoot down any Carrier/BC in no time. Broodlords are the exception, because they bring their own "protective screen" of free ground units and they have the support of Fungal for crowd control as well ...
Aaaggghhhh... so apparently you don't play late game TvT against bio Terran. Upgraded BCs simply don't die to marines, it's crazy. If your BCs are 0/0 against upgraded marines though, then sure you're in for some pain. If you think that BCs aren't viable at all in WoL, then you need to actually start playing the game.
The Carrier is kinda lame in WoL because air play in general kinda sucks, plus Carrier leash targeting in WoL is kinda bugged (this is fixed in the latest HotS patch). Everyone knows the Carrier has been underwhelming, but it's not because of mass marine or mass hydralisk.
The Carrier is lame because its tiny Interceptors can be shot down in no time by massed AA units and even you cant deny that this is much faster than in BW.
If the BC was so indestructible, why doesnt every TvT end with a BC war or at least one of them going BC? Maybe because it is much easier to mass Marines (or Vikings) than building BCs? Thus removing the production speed boosts would be yet another thing which Blizzard would need to change in addition to forced unit spreading ... to make sure that there are far fewer units on the battlefield. Obviously this also was missing from Dustins movement test.
Sadly Blizzard doesnt see this way of solving the "boring units problem" and rather introduces more cheap units with a lot of overpowered nifty tricks which can break the game (=making it boring to play against or watch) past critical numbers. If every unit is exciting no unit is exciting, because exciting is the norm. To be exciting a unit - or its application/use - must be exceptional and not standard.
On December 10 2012 06:59 iamcaustic wrote: In high level games, there are more situations where you'll want to spread/split your units than situations where you'll want to clump them up. Avoiding/mitigating AoE and getting a better concave are key aspects to winning a large engagement. I recommend watching SortOf vs. HyuN during this weekend's NASL grand finals. Perfect demonstration of a pro player completely crushing the favourite to win with a superior concave (army split into multiple groups before moving in) and mitigating the opponent's fungals.
Also, what's the source regarding the response to Blizzard's testing? I hope it's a better source than some random guy posting on some forums without valid evidence.
Oh come on ... now you are back to "evidence", eh? How could anyone "prove" that Dustins test was useless and bound to fail before all the components were implemented? You guys really need to learn to think more!
Then why even say such a thing? I'm only going to tell you this once: making up crap doesn't give you an argument. Not even so much as a source, let alone your complaints about needing evidence for the claim -- as if it's unfair to have to back up one's statements or something.
On December 10 2012 14:32 Rabiator wrote: Just use your brain, because with forced spreading of units while moving you need to readjust AoE damage and the simple mod Dustin tested just had a slight ... very slight ... adjustment to movement. With forced spreading while moving you could also have the opposite situation of the one you described ... that pros are good when they know how and when to clump their units for a concentrated attack ... but then I think you didnt bother reading my post, because thats exactly what I said then. The big point is that Dustin doesnt get the point which spreading the units and a "wiggly" movement like BW would have.
You need better reading comprehension:
On December 10 2012 06:59 iamcaustic wrote: In high level games, there are more situations where you'll want to spread/split your units than situations where you'll want to clump them up.
That's not the same as saying there are no situations when you'll want your army clumped, it's just those instances are much fewer and farther between. Having to manually split/spread is a more common mechanical tax, thus resulting in a higher skill cap.
On December 10 2012 06:59 iamcaustic wrote: Aaaggghhhh... so apparently you don't play late game TvT against bio Terran. Upgraded BCs simply don't die to marines, it's crazy. If your BCs are 0/0 against upgraded marines though, then sure you're in for some pain. If you think that BCs aren't viable at all in WoL, then you need to actually start playing the game.
The Carrier is kinda lame in WoL because air play in general kinda sucks, plus Carrier leash targeting in WoL is kinda bugged (this is fixed in the latest HotS patch). Everyone knows the Carrier has been underwhelming, but it's not because of mass marine or mass hydralisk.
The Carrier is lame because its tiny Interceptors can be shot down in no time by massed AA units and even you cant deny that this is much faster than in BW.
If the BC was so indestructible, why doesnt every TvT end with a BC war or at least one of them going BC? Maybe because it is much easier to mass Marines (or Vikings) than building BCs? Thus removing the production speed boosts would be yet another thing which Blizzard would need to change in addition to forced unit spreading ... to make sure that there are far fewer units on the battlefield. Obviously this also was missing from Dustins movement test.
Sadly Blizzard doesnt see this way of solving the "boring units problem" and rather introduces more cheap units with a lot of overpowered nifty tricks which can break the game (=making it boring to play against or watch) past critical numbers. If every unit is exciting no unit is exciting, because exciting is the norm. To be exciting a unit - or its application/use - must be exceptional and not standard.
Regarding BCs, nearly every end game TvT features BCs. You're either getting BCs or desperately trying to acquire Thors/marines and build missile turrets if you lack any chance for air dominance. You seriously don't play Terran, do you? The reason why not every TvT features BCs is because many TvTs don't reach that end game.
Regarding Carriers, go watch some Heart of the Swarm (it's actually viable to go air in HotS). You really don't know what you're talking about. Upgraded Carriers are good.
Wow this Browder guy really makes me angry. I am a diamond level Terran and i actually played a few TvZs on Daybreak with the modified movement listed as Alternative 2. Yes the change is not very big if you play exactly like you play without the modified movement. But you can use the bigger magic box to move big armies in certain formations. It makes it possible for players at my level to move units the way you want them to move. You can either move them in a formation or you clump them up. It gives the player options and makes army movement more intuitive. To move them in a certain formation you have to move command outside of the magic box. With the change to the magic box it is perfectly possible to move a big marine tank army in a certain formation through daybreak. Without the bigger magic box you have to constantly rearrange your army to keep some kind of formation. The bigger magic box and the easier army movement in certain formations actually does increase the micro at my level. In fights i can now micro small parts of my army. The army feels more like a number of individual units that can be microed in small groups and less like some kind of big blob. Over all the bigger magic box gives the player an alternative. The player can move his army in a certain formation without korean levels of apm. IMHO that is a good change. Quite sad that these guys at blizz can't see that.
On November 30 2012 17:03 slytown wrote: Um, the unit movement is intended to make you pull units into a concave/separate positions. It's called micro. Stop whining to Blizzard about everything and make the effort to get better.
I'm a diamond player and it erks me how simple user fixes or practice can eliminate the problems with HoTS and WoL everyone talks about.
Oh please ... shoving around your clumps of units isnt the "pinnacle of micro", but we could have A LOT MORE to micro if the movement system was changed AND you would still be able to "micro" your units into a concave, but with additional micro added to the game. Thats one of the points of the discussion here and the other is "balancing is made unnecessarily hard through too many units in the battles" and another is "tight clumps of units are ugly and harder to understand for a viewer".
Basically you have said that you are AGAINST adding more micro to the game by keeping its "autoclumping stupidity".
On November 30 2012 14:41 iamcaustic wrote:
On November 30 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:
On November 30 2012 13:34 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 30 2012 06:48 wcr.4fun wrote: [quote]
do some fucking research on bw please. So you got your marine splitting in sc2. I can name one unit and already equalize the scale, hydralisk storm dodging with 3-4 groups of hydralisks is just as hard in bw.
And now to tip the scale into favour of broodwar, you've also got mutalisk micro, scourge micro, wraith micro, marine splitting micro vs lurkers, carrier micro, dragoon vs mine micro, vulture micro,........
First of all, chill out. He isn't hurling insults at BW or anything. Second of all, we're talking about a pathing change here. Not various micro techniques that have everything to do with bugs (good ones, of course) and nothing to do with spread out pathing.
The micro in BW was required NOT because of bugs, but because of the movement system ... which in itself was NOT a bug. It was clunky, but thats not the same as a bug.
Carrier micro was actually only possible due to glitches. Mutalisk micro vs. scourge also incorporated glitches. This is why these units cannot be micromanaged the same way in SC2. They definitely have everything to do with bugs like AnachronisticAnarchy said. You also need to chill out, by the way.
A glitch isnt the same as a bug ... using those glitches tool SKILL and thus they were a good addition to the game.
One rather wise rock musician once said something like this: "If you have a bad day and dont hit the right note at one part of the song you better make the same mistake again later on so you can say that was on purpose." So glitch or no glitch is part of the perspective.
I dont get to chill out, because of posts like the one I quoted above. People who seem to claim to be "pro micro" and who seem to have no clue about BW and the necessary micro an unclumped movement would have.
Ah, if you want to get into details about difference between glitch and bug, then change my usage of "glitch" to "bug". After all, a glitch is generally a temporary and quickly rectified mistake in a program's function, while a bug is a mistake due to the actual code, and is possible to replicate 100%.
I was just using the terms synonymously out of laziness. Either way, AnachronisticAnarchy was still completely correct.
I could start a "definition duel" by saying that the glitches werent removed from BW, so they became features of the game, but that is not the point. The point rather is that - looking at the "Carrier Micro thread there seem to be some small hints that Blizzard is looking to change that unit to include just such "glitch micro" OR something similar. Maybe they will see that nothing changes due to the tight clumps of Marines and Hydralsks and thats hopefully when they will understand the damage tight clumping does to the game. I dont get my hopes high though, but we cant stop asking for better pathing ...
Eh? Blizzard's own game guide says to make marines and hydralisks to counter-act Carriers. That's not a side effect of AI pathing in SC2, that's a deliberate design from Blizzard. You're still free to consider it silly, but the reason is different.
The point is that the super tight clumps of ground units make big air units rather useless. If you have 5 Hydras it might be viable to use one Carrier or BC against them and the battle would be even, BUT if you have 40 Marines they will shoot down any Carrier/BC in no time. Broodlords are the exception, because they bring their own "protective screen" of free ground units and they have the support of Fungal for crowd control as well ...
----
A slight addendum from the "archives" of Blizzard ... patch 1.5.2:
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty – Patch 1.5.2 Bug Fixes
General
Pathing has been adjusted. Units will once again take the most optimal route to their destinations.
So Blizzard isnt unwilling to change the pathing in general ... the only problem is convincing them that super tight formations make the game worse (see above).
they tried the fix in the video but it made no difference. That is because people don't issue 1 a click right across the map, they do it in a series of small ones, which instantly make the units clump again.
I also agree that splitting your units has become a skill needed to beat players in sc2 and thats a good thing. Everyone is always complaining about how there is no micro in sc2 then wants to remove something that creates the need to micro better...... thats funny to me.
As i said in an earlier post: I played a few games on Daybreak with the modified movement presented as alternative 2. If you put in a little bit of effort you can move your army in a certain formation with the bigger magic box. It does make a difference. Mr Browder somehow missed that in his tests. Sometimes you have to issue a "stop" or "hold position command" to keep the formation, but generally speaking: If you want to move your army in a certain formation into a certain direction you now can do that. Units now move parallel to each other. They do not all try to move to exactly the same spot. It is a small change but a good one.
don't really care that much about the gameplay effects rather than the spectator effect. I think watching a semi-scattered army spreading out is much more appealing to my eyes than a tightly packed ball formation. Would make 200/200 fights seem actually big lol
EPT
