I did not do anything else. As you can see in the video, those units still clump up. But look better. (Personal opinion)
However, I also found two problems:
1. The AOE problem, of course.
2. The total DPS of the group is decreased, because the distance of each unit is larger, and units whom are in the back row are not able to attack at once. But it may not hard to solve.
Since I don't speak English very well, I may not reply you guys' replies (if any. I don't know). The words above also shows that players from all over the world don't glad to see the death ball. It is a kind of global problem.
PS: "Unit-Radius" and "Models-Selection Radius"are the key words of units of Data Module in the SC2 Editor.
Well of course it looks better. It's just that the dev team seems to be under the impression that models clipping with each other = good pathfinding ai.
Aesthetically this looks better than what we have currently imo, the spaces in between the units make an army look alot less clumped and neater. However, the radii that you chose might even be a bit too big, I would have made them a bit smaller.
Bigger units like the Thor might become more 'retarded' when giving them commands. Units like the Ultralisk and the Thor have smaller radii than their model so that they are more easy to use and fit through more chokes and clumped armies. This is at the cost of making units cut into each other and makes armies look even more clumped up. David Kim is actually aware of this issue with thors, in the MLG interview, he stated that "Thors actually suffer from an art issue" when asked about the mass Thor game by Thorzain.
dps/area will decrease for many smaller units significantly and aoe spells will potentially be less effective. Major re-balancing will have to occur obviously.
Another thing is that micro could become more difficult if the radius is actually bigger than the model, you might think that your unit can be micro-ed to X position when in fact it cant fit. However people could get used to the actual radius with practice.
Just a clarification question: Do attacks have to hit the unit model or just anywhere within the radius for the attack to count as a 'hit'?
2. The total DPS of the group is decreased, because the distance of each unit is larger, and units whom are in the back row are not able to attack at once.
2. The total DPS of the group is decreased, because the distance of each unit is larger, and units whom are in the back row are not able to attack at once. But it may not hard to solve.
Actually thats how Real RTS actually work. you dont have too solve that. Is up to the player to decide how to engage the enemy and where.
On November 13 2012 17:41 MasterCynical wrote: Aesthetically this looks better than what we have currently imo, the spaces in between the units make an army look alot less clumped and neater. However, the radii that you chose might even be a bit too big, I would have made them a bit smaller.
Bigger units like the Thor might become more 'retarded' when giving them commands. Units like the Ultralisk and the Thor have smaller radii than their model so that they are more easy to use and fit through more chokes and clumped armies. This is at the cost of making units cut into each other and makes armies look even more clumped up. David Kim is actually aware of this issue with thors, in the MLG interview, he stated that "Thors actually suffer from an art issue" when asked about the mass Thor game by Thorzain.
dps/area will decrease for many smaller units significantly and aoe spells will potentially be less effective. Major re-balancing will have to occur obviously.
Another thing is that micro could become more difficult if the radius is actually bigger than the model, you might think that your unit can be micro-ed to X position when in fact it cant fit. However people could get used to the actual radius with practice.
Just a clarification question: Do attacks have to hit the unit model or just anywhere within the radius for the attack to count as a 'hit'?
Thank you for your analysis. But I will not able to make them smaller the next days, because I still have my mid-term exams to prepare.
I don't have the game in my laptop now. But I remember that the "Unit-Radius" is an "invisible" area which is the "effective coverage" that a unit to receive damage (No matter how big or small the unit is). The "Models-Selection Radius" is just a circle with colors.
On November 13 2012 17:51 eviltomahawk wrote: There was a custom map that tested this exact suggestion on Xel Naga Caverns. It had a thread on Teamliquid in the maps section.
2. The total DPS of the group is decreased, because the distance of each unit is larger, and units whom are in the back row are not able to attack at once. But it may not hard to solve.
Actually thats how Real RTS actually work. you dont have too solve that. Is up to the player to decide how to engage the enemy and where.
Hmmm... I am not sure. You know, there are some units who have very long range.
On November 13 2012 17:28 Insoleet wrote: It's still better if its players who split their units.
Just THINK about it: a. Can you keep your units split? b. Does every race have something that forces the opponent to split his units? c. Is it actually good that the DEFENDER has to split and thus micro so the attacker gets yet another advantage after choosing where to fight?
All three are clearly answered by NO and this explains why it is NOT better for a player to SPLIT his units. Micro should be the job of the ATTCKER and not the defender and thus the right way to look at it is: "It would be better if the it is players who CLUMP UP THEIR UNITS instead of the movement mechanics." This is the much better way round, because it enables strong AoE attacks and players having the choice to risk losing a bunch to that. With the current movement mechanics you "have to be MarineKing to survive an attack by Banelings" and not many people are able to do that. The "open formation but clump up if you want to" offers you the chance to have tight formations, but you dont automatically lose if you cant do it.
----
Just increasing the unit radius doesnt work unless you can force the units into a tighter formation through micro. Player choice is important and the current system offers no choice, just an "korean kids can do it" emergency fix which isnt good. So there needs to be some "random left-right-straight ahead direction" added to the movement and not just an increase in size.
Looks horrible to me, I would question why can't enemy units squeeze through there and why can't I form a close formation to stop this and why aren't melee units nerfed to the ground because they now own everything due to the inability to decrease your surface area.
As for the poster above, you can keep your units split, but people don't use it often like it is magic! (especially pros don't like it because they prefer to move safely and only memorize one art of moving around that is so save they kill their own command centers with it, they have the speed though to split their units in the midst of battle even if it costs them alot of damage and control) And clumping is easier then unclumping, atleast I find BW movement mechanic easier to master then Sc2 ones. Defenders and Attacker both should have the need to micro, with the defender having a slight edge due to preparation time, which is given in Sc2 so perfect.
And yes I do kite with my Marines splitted against fungal.
On November 13 2012 17:28 Insoleet wrote: It's still better if its players who split their units.
Just THINK about it: a. Can you keep your units split? b. Does every race have something that forces the opponent to split his units? c. Is it actually good that the DEFENDER has to split and thus micro so the attacker gets yet another advantage after choosing where to fight?
All three are clearly answered by NO and this explains why it is NOT better for a player to SPLIT his units. Micro should be the job of the ATTCKER and not the defender and thus the right way to look at it is: "It would be better if the it is players who CLUMP UP THEIR UNITS instead of the movement mechanics." This is the much better way round, because it enables strong AoE attacks and players having the choice to risk losing a bunch to that. With the current movement mechanics you "have to be MarineKing to survive an attack by Banelings" and not many people are able to do that. The "open formation but clump up if you want to" offers you the chance to have tight formations, but you dont automatically lose if you cant do it.
----
Just increasing the unit radius doesnt work unless you can force the units into a tighter formation through micro. Player choice is important and the current system offers no choice, just an "korean kids can do it" emergency fix which isnt good. So there needs to be some "random left-right-straight ahead direction" added to the movement and not just an increase in size.
I suggest you THINK once more and try to imagine why someone could answer YES to those questions.
it looks better,much better, and it would improve gameplay because you can't attack with ur 200/200 at the same time, so you could be able to hold with a smaller army, but d.kim and d.browder are happy with the pathing and radius..........
2. The total DPS of the group is decreased, because the distance of each unit is larger, and units whom are in the back row are not able to attack at once.
You think its a problem. I think its a solution.
I agree, it is a great solution! :D
I like the look of larger radii. The fact the dps-density would be reduced would lower the effectiveness of the deathball, which I'm sure almost everyone would agree would be great. I have said it before; why do marines and other units need to stand shoulder to shoulder, it looks ridiculous and leads to massively high dps-density. This leads to very quick battles with the boring deathballs. Please Blizzard, consider these kinds of fundamental changes if you really want to tackle the deathball.
@FeyFey: If zergling and zealot radii were also slightly bigger, it might make up for the marines' larger radii. Also banelings and Ultras would be less destructive due to more spread out units. So tell me why melee units would own everything? Secondly, I would question why squeezing your units through anything in the heat of a battle is a good thing. Slightly larger radii actually give a better defenders/high-ground advantage because the attacking army can't 'squeeze' up ramps as well, which would be great IMO!
I would make the hitboxes a tiny bit smaller, so they clumped just a tiny bit more, but otherwise, looks really nice. What happens when zerglings attack marines with the new hitboxes? or when hellions run by minerals lines, and things like that? Just wondering if you could post a video of situational things like that?
Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
On November 13 2012 23:23 Lorch wrote: Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
500 times more friendly based on what fact? please raise your statement above the level of pure specualtion and wishful thinking.
On November 13 2012 23:23 Lorch wrote: Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
500 times more friendly based on what fact? please raise your statement above the level of pure specualtion and wishful thinking.
What do you mean what fact? The fact that a lot of bw people hate watching star 2 because everything clumps and this would fix clumping. The fact that watching 1 deathball that is clumped as fuck a move against another a move is obviously worse to watch then watching a not clumped deathball vs a non clumped deathball, simply due to the fact that it's sooo much easier to tell exactly what is going on. 500 times was obviously an exaggeration used to stress my point that it is better.
On November 13 2012 23:23 Lorch wrote: Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
500 times more friendly based on what fact? please raise your statement above the level of pure specualtion and wishful thinking.
based on the fact that battles will be longer ( you can't attack with your 200/200 at the same time), more micro intensive ( you need to flank more and you would be able to hold position with less units) and it looks better, it's not like 100 supply in 1 square ( you can't even see properly what's happening), also aoe should be bigger which makes the game more fun
On November 13 2012 23:23 Lorch wrote: Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
500 times more friendly based on what fact? please raise your statement above the level of pure specualtion and wishful thinking.
The fact that a lot of bw people hate watching star 2 because everything clumps and this would fix clumping.
Where do you take that from? I'm not convinced that this is the sole reason, not even the most important reason, so please provice representing data.
On November 13 2012 23:23 Lorch wrote: Oh hell yeah, if blizzard is actually smart they would implement this asap, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem of bw purist in korea with star 2 is the fact that everything clumps like shit which sucks for spectators, so just by doing this simple fix they would already make the game about 500 times more spectator friendly.
500 times more friendly based on what fact? please raise your statement above the level of pure specualtion and wishful thinking.
The fact that a lot of bw people hate watching star 2 because everything clumps and this would fix clumping.
Where do you take that from? I'm not convinced that this is the sole reason, not even the most important reason, so please provice representing data.
I live in Korea and a lot of the Koreans are very unimpressed by sc2. One of their biggest gripes is that sc2 is "too much rock, scissors, paper" as they say. I've also been told that sc2 looks too easy, with just one big army fighting another. So there we go!
@AndreiDaGiant: I love how you're insinuating that sc2 is not very fun and uninteresting :-P I do think though that increased radii will make it a better game..
I don't get why people bitch about this unit clumping shit so much. If they split their units as well as I do, they can dodge all fungals, EMP, Storm, Colossus shots, banelings etc. Just pre split and split your units and you will be fine.
On November 14 2012 01:37 clocked wrote: I don't get why people bitch about this unit clumping shit so much. If they split their units as well as I do, they can dodge all fungals, EMP, Storm, Colossus shots, banelings etc. Just pre split and split your units and you will be fine.
On November 14 2012 01:37 clocked wrote: I don't get why people bitch about this unit clumping shit so much. If they split their units as well as I do, they can dodge all fungals, EMP, Storm, Colossus shots, banelings etc. Just pre split and split your units and you will be fine.
This isn't about balance or making splitting units any easier or harder. This is purely about making the game look better for the spectator so that armies don't look like a clusterfuck.
On November 14 2012 08:51 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: this looks better but you should be able to clump your units too, so changing the collision size isn't a good choice
You can clump your units with the changes. It's a great choice because it solves many problems that no one else has offered a better, more elegant and longterm solution to.
i wonder how long it would take for such a ball to get through a chokepoint or a lowered depot. perhaps some minutes. people would yell at blizzard for that.
imagine 20 mutas flattening your main while your marines go through the choke 1 at a time to their instant death.
On November 14 2012 08:51 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: this looks better but you should be able to clump your units too, so changing the collision size isn't a good choice
You can clump your units with the changes. It's a great choice because it solves many problems that no one else has offered a better, more elegant and longterm solution to.
I don't think so, in the videos he has the units move into each other but they don't clump up like they do now. This suggestion is about making the units have a bigger collision size, not changing their pathing to leave space between them. And if they can't clump up as much as they do now... i'm not sure that would be a dominately good thing, since it'll require forcefield, AOE, ramps, maps, etc. to change. It'll even effect how well you can attack buildings.
doesn't look like blizzard has any plans on changing how units pathing works. If anything, buffing AOE rather than nerfing it should be blizzards priority for fixing death balls. however, the spells need to be high risk/reward so noobs can't just aoe other noobs to death, but at the same time pros should be able to skillfully execute their aoe units and make other pros pay for not splitting their armies.
an example of this is making siege time longer but increasing overall damage
On November 14 2012 10:36 cari-kira wrote: i wonder how long it would take for such a ball to get through a chokepoint or a lowered depot. perhaps some minutes. people would yell at blizzard for that.
imagine 20 mutas flattening your main while your marines go through the choke 1 at a time to their instant death.
That's all speculation.. This should be tested before you make any assumptions like this. Have you noticed how quickly an army can get through a tiny gap in between misplaced forcefields. I rate this might not be as big a problem as you think, could someone test this? I also wouldn't mind seeing slightly larger ramps..
On November 14 2012 08:51 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: this looks better but you should be able to clump your units too, so changing the collision size isn't a good choice
Units still seem to clump up in those vids... I'd also like those who like clumping to explain why it might be good for sc2. Also, those radii should probably be a little smaller. If none of the races clump so much and things are balanced, won't it make for a better game?
On November 14 2012 11:20 emc wrote: um, isn't there already a thread for this?
doesn't look like blizzard has any plans on changing how units pathing works. If anything, buffing AOE rather than nerfing it should be blizzards priority for fixing death balls. however, the spells need to be high risk/reward so noobs can't just aoe other noobs to death, but at the same time pros should be able to skillfully execute their aoe units and make other pros pay for not splitting their armies.
an example of this is making siege time longer but increasing overall damage
There is no change to pathing or AI. OP stated that he only changed 2 parameters for each unit.
I fail to understand how making it impossible for two units to sit right next to each-other would make the game more appealing to spectators. If anything, it looks like a game from the mid 90's when developers were technically unable to draw something which resembled "real life".
On November 14 2012 20:06 moQbara wrote: I fail to understand how making it impossible for two units to sit right next to each-other would make the game more appealing to spectators. If anything, it looks like a game from the mid 90's when developers were technically unable to draw something which resembled "real life".
If you read some more of this thread you'll see that people have explained what benefits larger radii might bring to gameplay. Maybe arguing against some of these ideas or bringing up actual disadvantages might help more. Also, tell me exactly how a Deathball is anything like real life? I don't see anyone shoulder to shoulder in the pictures below, nor are the tanks touching each other..
^ I don't see any fighting going on in those pictures. Not that I would expect to, but in SC2 armies are fighting and moving around a lot more than in real life.
Also, who says the Phalanx doesn't come back into style in the future?
Wow Dustin Browder, are you fucking serious!? You state yourself that it didn't change anything in the internal testing - SO GO CHANGE IT, it makes the game look 100% better and more clear to wtf is going on! If it doesn't change anything gameplay-wise AS YOU STATED go freaking change it for aesthetic's visual clarity's sake
On November 15 2012 01:33 Antylamon wrote: ^ I don't see any fighting going on in those pictures. Not that I would expect to, but in SC2 armies are fighting and moving around a lot more than in real life.
Also, who says the Phalanx doesn't come back into style in the future?
When I did my military service we moved in lines, or in pairs or small teams, keeping the distance about 5 to 10 meters to each other. Why? Because grenades, that's why.
In the future that hardly matters though, targeting systems and weapon power will be high enough to eliminate the foot soldier completely. Even modern tanks can auto-target anything by heat and gun them down in seconds.
If we think logically, a world where humans from Earth are capable of interstellar travel, it's quite likely all warfare is done by nanobots and unmanned droids. StarCraft isn't realistic, so real life logic cannot be applied. Deathballs are terrible though.
On November 14 2012 21:24 winsonsonho wrote: If you read some more of this thread you'll see that people have explained what benefits larger radii might bring to gameplay.
The "benefits" people claim are pure speculation. We cannot predict how this "fix" to clumping will affect the game mechanics. But we can certainly agree that AOE, pathing, group DPS and melee vs. ranged attacks will be changed somehow. When you change so many things essential to the game, without any actual knowledge of what can happen, it is a lot more likely that the effects will be bad. Because, whether you like it or not, the game we see today is the result of years of developing and testing by Blizzard and, if the solution would be as simple as making units have larger radii, it would've been found by Blizzard themselves a long long time ago.
On November 14 2012 21:24 winsonsonho wrote: Maybe arguing against some of these ideas or bringing up actual disadvantages might help more. Also, tell me exactly how a Deathball is anything like real life? I don't see anyone shoulder to shoulder in the pictures below, nor are the tanks touching each other..
The main disadvantage is that it has the potential of breaking the game in so many ways (I explained this in the paragraph above). I never said deathballs are like real life, nor did I imply that they should be. What I said is:
"it looks like a game from the mid 90's when developers were technically unable to draw something which resembled "real life""
Please note how I never said SC2 is real life or anything close to that. HOWEVER, not being able to put two units next to eachother is retarded and shouldn't be a fix for anything. While it is true that in "real life" we don't have alien races or psionic special agents, we can do simple things like standing one next to another. Don't see any particular reason for which in a fictional universe, all living things have lost the ability of closing in to shake hands or exchange their rifles. Armies don't move in a tight group while on the battlefield not because they are physically unable to do so, but because they would make much easier targets. Deathballs should not be forbidden or made impossible through this kind of modifications. They should be unrewarding, too risky to employ (just like in the "real life" example of grenades) and so on. Changing / adding stuff to the game in order to make it advance in this direction would be progress. Making units artificially spread is not.
On November 15 2012 01:33 Antylamon wrote: ^ I don't see any fighting going on in those pictures. Not that I would expect to, but in SC2 armies are fighting and moving around a lot more than in real life.
Also, who says the Phalanx doesn't come back into style in the future?
Oh god, i can just imagine all the units stuck behind buildings as their radius is too large. the siege tank looks larger then a supply depot...
I don't like this at all.. the clumping and small radius was seen as a bad thing for a long time, but seeing pros split their units well makes the game much more exciting to watch. not saying you couldnt split with this, but it caters to casual players more.
Notice how the back units can't be a-moved anymore for easymode steamroll? Now that platoon has to go find some other place to fight keep the DPS uptime 100%. The radius increase isn't really significant enough for units to get "stuck," it's still smooth as butter pathing. The bigger units probably don't need as much increase though. The smaller units are looking great. Bioball less susceptible to AoE, less ridiculous DPS density, so their counters like the Colossi can be nerfed. This definitely looks like a great change toward more soft-counters rather than hard-counters. It would uproot balance, but HotS is doing exactly that anyway.
how does adjusting the unit radius affect whether or not they can squeeze through tight wall-offs? I mean take for example the Protoss wall-off with 1 zealot betweeen a pylong and a gateway? will adjusting the unit radius cause the zealot to not be able to fit through the oh-so-well-know wall-off?
or wil the gap between the wall-off need to be bigger?
making it seem like a zergling should easily fit through but cant?
Watching this makes me wonder why ranged units like marines, stalkers and roaches can shoot through each other anyways. Logically each marine would need line-of-sight to its target to fire.
Yea I know LOS will never be implemented in SC... there are alot of other things that can block LOS too like buildings, terrain etc. But I can't help but wonder what SC2 would be like with LOS rules enforced.
Increasing the radius isn't the way to fix this. Increasing formation diameter is a start (but in current meta would lower the skill ceiling).
It really is a problem of the unit pathing being too smart and too concise.In the sc2BW mod unit pushing is turned off to alleviate the clumping. With a combination of this you've got more micro required to position units which is much prettier then split asap before the fungal hits your army. That said, Blizz won't likely opt for this sort of change because it changes the entire campaign and game as we've known it. It won't be friendly for newcomers, or even lower leaguers who all of a sudden have to adjust to stupider pathing.
If Blizzard doesn’t bring changes in pathfinding and doesn’t introduce limited unit selection in HOTS then it will be too late to do this in LOV. Because by that time the game will be already 4-5 years old and it won’t be possible to make drastic changes. If sc2 doesn’t improve greatly with HOTS it will lose a lot of viewers to DOTA2, LOL and real life.
Can you try this with a bit less dramatic of a change? The problem with what you've shown here is firstly that the micro potential is far less because there is much less room to move when units are that 'fat'. And secondly, the DPS loss would be phenomenal at that size, I'm thinking right now about how even Immortals as they currently are are not cost effective in a big battle once you have more than say 8+ except maybe against pure mech, so for something that is massed even more like marine this change would basically be game breaking. I think you would need the tiniest of radiuses added to units, enough to give units the slightest of visual 'space' but absolutely no more, but even then it is guaranteed to affect balance & consequently the metagame in some way, so you'd just have to hope that the new metagame can also be balanced.
On November 15 2012 20:36 Destro wrote: Oh god, i can just imagine all the units stuck behind buildings as their radius is too large. the siege tank looks larger then a supply depot...
I don't like this at all.. the clumping and small radius was seen as a bad thing for a long time, but seeing pros split their units well makes the game much more exciting to watch. not saying you couldnt split with this, but it caters to casual players more.
The game should become harder, not easier imo
I did not change the "inner radius", the value which decide the interact with units and buildings.
If we buff AOE at the same time, the game will not easier.
On November 16 2012 19:03 XenoX101 wrote: Can you try this with a bit less dramatic of a change? The problem with what you've shown here is firstly that the micro potential is far less because there is much less room to move when units are that 'fat'. And secondly, the DPS loss would be phenomenal at that size, I'm thinking right now about how even Immortals as they currently are are not cost effective in a big battle once you have more than say 8+ except maybe against pure mech, so for something that is massed even more like marine this change would basically be game breaking. I think you would need the tiniest of radiuses added to units, enough to give units the slightest of visual 'space' but absolutely no more, but even then it is guaranteed to affect balance & consequently the metagame in some way, so you'd just have to hope that the new metagame can also be balanced.
Micro actually isnt "shape your clump of units into a concave and bring all of them into range" [I would call that "macro", but sadly that term is already taken] but rather "move your individual units in a way to maximise their efficiency" (stutter step micro for example or Dropship-Reaver-micro). The manipulation of clumps of units stopped being micro when they decided to make everything perfectly tight automatically.
On November 15 2012 01:33 Antylamon wrote: ^ I don't see any fighting going on in those pictures. Not that I would expect to, but in SC2 armies are fighting and moving around a lot more than in real life.
Also, who says the Phalanx doesn't come back into style in the future?
we are past the time where melee combat was deemed efficient and close formations are important. Units should be deadly on their own ... especially AoE units ... and this would make infantry spread out (if they had any brains that is).
@Antylamon Zerg would win every match against that, because Hannibal and his elephants (=Ultralisks) won about every battle as long as he had them.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.owensarchive.com/images/uploads/World%20War%202/HD-SN-99-02744.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.japanfocus.org/data/fallujah_war.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.chris-floyd.com/war/images/030402_warss9a_03_jpg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Greek_Phalanx.jpg)
