| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Big G
Italy835 Posts
200/200 army should cover a lot of surface, so a smaller army (i.e. An opponent who's behind in supply) with superior micro can still engage the weakest side gaining an advantage, while a clash between two equivalent armies can last longer than usual because not every unit is in range. It is a lot more viewer friendly too. What happens now is... 200 marines that in half a second comes simultaneously to 5 range. How cool. | ||
|
Adersick
United States216 Posts
I'm going to side with DB on this one, there's a lot of ground to cover as far as things we want in HotS, and this anti-blob movement doesn't seem to have a great effect compared to some of the alternatives (such as finishing up new unit balance and moving on to WoL unit balance with the new units in mind, or the ungodly amount of new UI/replay features we've been asking for). In summary though, I'm glad the beta testers are leaving no stone un-turned (I hope to join them soon if I get a key), and I'm glad the Blizz team is willing to listen to community/pro advice, as well as take actual steps (such as removing the old Warhound/re-adding the Carrier). I feel a cautious optimism for the future. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
On October 25 2012 11:53 Alex1Sun wrote: Ok, I agree. Sorry. I'm having a crazy day today  I should've thought a bit more before posting  On topic: You would still need stronger AOE to compensate then. So that's quite a bit of rebalancing. Stronger AOE coupled with more spread out armies means players can finally afford to leave units behind for defense, instead of having to bring every single unit they have to the 200/200 engagement or lose. | ||
|
quistador
United States43 Posts
On October 25 2012 12:15 Adersick wrote: I'm going to side with DB on this one, there's a lot of ground to cover as far as things we want in HotS, and this anti-blob movement doesn't seem to have a great effect compared to some of the alternatives With what testing? There are a couple posted games with Modified Movement used, but remember how long the game was out before players started splitting vs banes? They used to just target fire banes, now they split and target. This change brings more tactical possibilities due to longer battles through more accurate microing. I only think a slight radius buff is necessary to aoe. .5 to all aoe accross the board. The numbers are already balanced around how many shots it takes to kill base units. EDIT: Banking on the HOPE that fungle is changed. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On October 24 2012 22:42 MateShade wrote: I think a big issue though is that Zerg and Protoss rarely have to split their units, it would be nice if there were some things implemented in the game so that marines weren't the only units you could maximize surface area with The problem isnt that Marines have to split, but that there has been a change of micro from BW to SC2. - In BW you had to micro as the ATTACKER. (Mutas, Carrier, Dark Swarm+units, BC+Defensive Matrix from Science vessel) - In SC2 you have to micro as the DEFENDER. (X vs. Banelings) This is a terrible shift and one of the really bad changes. To give Terrans a way to "force micro" they could simply increase the trigger range for the Seeker Missile from "I have to be in range for you to shoot me down" to something longer. Since the missile is rather expensive, has only a slow speed and only has a limited lifespan it isnt so bad if you trigger it from further away. Opponents can micro against this. Personally I dont think that changes to units - like Blizzard intends to only look at - will cut it. I needs more drastic changes to the general mechanics (unit selection, unit movement, production/economy speed boosts) to make it more appealing to casuals like me, because I get overwhelmed by the amount of units AND I like defensive playstyle much more than a general "big army [which is useless without fast control] vs. another big army" style which is currently the only successful one. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On October 25 2012 14:42 Rabiator wrote: Personally I dont think that changes to units - like Blizzard intends to only look at - will cut it. I needs more drastic changes to the general mechanics (unit selection, unit movement, production/economy speed boosts) to make it more appealing to casuals like me, because I get overwhelmed by the amount of units AND I like defensive playstyle much more than a general "big army [which is useless without fast control] vs. another big army" style which is currently the only successful one. Why not try mech? There are people who have made it work in every matchup. A big plus is that it's much less about micro than any other defending strategy and more about positioning and planning. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10363 Posts
On October 25 2012 15:32 Antylamon wrote: Why not try mech? There are people who have made it work in every matchup. A big plus is that it's much less about micro than any other defending strategy and more about positioning and planning. Agreed, but disagree with the latter -- yes there is generally less micro during a fight, but good micro will still significantly improve your army's power. You'll still have to micro/stack/split Vikings, target fire with tanks, cut/split with hellions, EMP immortals/HT/etc., etc. etc. The splitting up of MMM is ideally done before a fight, similar to how you already position and siege up your tanks before a fight, so really the only thing you are missing (though this is a big one) is kiting/splitting your MMM ball during a battle. | ||
|
MrHavix
United States53 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
LAN Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
OSC
The PondCast
LAN Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8JP9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kx6vZ.jpg)
