EPTAutosurround - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On February 23 2010 06:52 Gedrah wrote: Because that's a stupid arbitrary limitation that has no good motivation and doesn't improve control in any way. You're still free to put 24 units on YOUR hotkeys, but I'm going to put 30+ on mine. And I don't find it a miserable struggle. Microing single units to keep them alive longer or microing your army to improve surround's effect on battles is still possible. Play the game more before you're so sure it needs to change, is my mouthy little bit of advice. I think it's great :X Of course it's not a miserable struggle to assign all of the units you own and the buildings too to one hotkey. It sounds really easy. I wish Blizzard would at least make it impossible to select buildings and units simultaneously... | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
but it does sound like it's better for macro players and worse for micro players. macro players want to a-move their lings in and then build more micro players want to run around picking at things and keep lings alive just like a lot of other things *coughdareimentionthiswithoutashitstormmbsautominecough* I think giving the ability to toggle is what is best. tournaments will of course have set rules so it doesn't affect high level, and the average casual gamer can still use it if he wishes. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
Say you have a bunch of clumped up zealots against an ultralisk. First three zealots charge at it and start whacking at the zerg unit. What will the remaining zealots do? There's only two possibilities: a. Collide ineffectually with each other until the player gets them 'unstuck' before they engage the ultralisk, or b. Go around their fellow zealots automatically and engage the enemy Option b. is what happens in Starcraft 2, and it's not because of an 'autosurround AI'; it's the logical consequence of improved pathing. If you can't reach an enemy because your own units are blocking, then you'll go around over to the nearest opening where there aren't any allied units blocking- the direct consequence of this is that if you have enough units, you will start surrounding the enemy, because that's the only way to get enough 'surface area' of contact with the enemy to get as many melee units into melee range as possible. You literally cannot remove autosurround from SC2 without making unit pathing dumber, so let's get right down to the core of the issue: should unit pathing be made dumber in SC2? | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
i never really seen any automatical surrounds, not quite sure what u guys r talking about :< edit: read some more and basically auto surround means that they move around their own units to get to the attack faster rather than freezing up like they do in sc1 for about a second? it sounds like a good feature and is only logical to a modern game o,o | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On February 23 2010 07:50 Zato-1 wrote: [...] You literally cannot remove autosurround from SC2 without making unit pathing dumber, so let's get right down to the core of the issue: should unit pathing be made dumber in SC2? This should be quoted in the OP. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
Modders and mappers are going to absolutely love the pathing in this game. It handles 800 units just perfectly. It's like liquid motion. I hope they don't break it, they just need to make some collision sizes a bit bigger. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On February 23 2010 07:50 Zato-1 wrote: I've said this many times, and I'll say it again. Say you have a bunch of clumped up zealots against an ultralisk. First three zealots charge at it and start whacking at the zerg unit. What will the remaining zealots do? There's only two possibilities: a. Collide ineffectually with each other until the player gets them 'unstuck' before they engage the ultralisk, or b. Go around their fellow zealots automatically and engage the enemy Option b. is what happens in Starcraft 2, and it's not because of an 'autosurround AI'; it's the logical consequence of improved pathing. If you can't reach an enemy because your own units are blocking, then you'll go around over to the nearest opening where there aren't any allied units blocking- the direct consequence of this is that if you have enough units, you will start surrounding the enemy, because that's the only way to get enough 'surface area' of contact with the enemy to get as many melee units into melee range as possible. You literally cannot remove autosurround from SC2 without making unit pathing dumber, so let's get right down to the core of the issue: should unit pathing be made dumber in SC2? Pretty much. And no, it should not be dumber. Dumb goons and goliaths is all the reason why it should stay the way it is | ||
|
Z-R0E
United States147 Posts
Like Klive5ive said, I think this will just be different. Not necessarily right nor wrong, good nor bad. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Also units acquire targets differently in this game and it just doesn't feel right. Another thing that bugs me is you can nuzzle up next to an idle worker and expect him to attack you so you hit him and it doesn't run away. this age old trick is gone. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On February 23 2010 06:54 Virtue wrote: It also makes charing zealots insanely good as they make a pretty good wall and it's hard to get off a surround. against a large number of zealots because they auto spread out. I think we can generalise this to any fast melee unit is super powerful with autosurround! On February 23 2010 04:23 pachi wrote: I hate auto surround. it makes it impossible to retreat half my unis because they automatically super run at my opponents T_T Yea I often feel that retreat is hardly worth it most of the time due to this =[ | ||
|
Redunzl
862 Posts
On February 23 2010 04:52 meeple wrote: It might turn out that at lower levels its good but at higher levels you need to micro to combat the autosurround... like splitting up your units or during ling battles perhaps? | ||
| ||
