|
On April 23 2011 13:58 SlapMySalami wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2011 19:39 infinity2k9 wrote:Warp gates were definitely a big questionable design decision. Maps are, and were always balanced with regards to rush distance. Adding a mechanic that removes that is a big deal. Adding it at tier 1 and balancing everything around it, is nuts. We are all used to it being in the game already but it's not good for the game in my opinion. Defenders advantage is already lowered with lack of high ground mechanics and the general unit movement, now having an ability which can warp units in anywhere and completely negate the distance? One of the main things that helped balance the very powerful zealot early game in BW was simply the fact it's slow, now this aspect has been basically ignored and 'balanced around'. Every now and then it seems Blizzard does something which really makes you question how much they are thinking about things. The reaper was a big questionably designed unit, which at least they fixed. But how could they ever have thought, a cliff-jumping low tier unit that can kite everything is a good idea? Plus it has bonus damage to buildings, because..? It doesn't even fit the idea of Terran in the first place, to me at least, considering theres already a vulture replacement. So hopefully they can fix this too, but hopefully not remove because like people said it is infact a cool idea just the implementation doesn't make sense. Show nested quote +On April 22 2011 17:05 SlapMySalami wrote:i disagree with the map control bullet Put simply, just because you have a unit in a certain area doesn't mean you have map control of that area, it's that fact that you can actively deny movement in that area that makes it map control. It seems to me like all these ideas build upon one another and that if you want to be able to control the flow of the game you need to have map control, and if you want to have map control you need units that can do more than add DPS. You need units with map prescence. there are many a unit with map presence (in sc2) how easy is it for a terran to push out of his 2-base with a flock of mutas around how easy is it for a zerg to push out when a terran makes his first couple hellions how easy is it for a roach player to push out with only roaches against against an army of lings a terran cannot push out of his base when DTs are around until he saves up scans or gets a raven i dunno what you want will map control exist when lurkers and spider mines are in the game? Those are all examples of what you might call 'soft' temporary methods of map control, or more like simply area control. You can't see how this differs from siege tanks/lurkers/spider mines? People get too defensive over SC2 and can't admit any points against the game. We're not even trying to say, put the BW units back in the game. But there's no new replacements either, there's little to no tactical depth to the units besides the obvious (put melee in front of ranged etc.). TvZ for example in BW is probably the best one to look at, because it was an amazing back and forth dance where you had to think about the area around your units the whole time. PvP in BW however was probably the one that lacked this the most, and most resembled an SC2 game. Except it didn't have balling mechanics so the battles were naturally more spread out, and the reavers and templars added a nice level of skill onto the 1a2a3a. But i do get the feeling of BW PvP in SC2 in quite a few matchups. Game very heavily decided by the few main engagements of the entire armies. why does the unit have to be stationary (and possibly invisible) in order to be considered a map control unit
a unit that sacrafices mobility generally gains insane damage potential
for example. a siege tank in bw did 75 damage a shot. aslong as it didn't move. perfect for holding a particular area. unsieged tanks were not good at holding an area
couple of lurkers can hold a ramp against infinite marines. hydras cannot.
|
On April 16 2011 09:51 Abraxas514 wrote:
BW was a lot more complicated to play, no argument there. But more complicated doesn't mean better. 7 layered guitars in a song, no matter how well constructed, doesn't make that song better than one with 2-3 layered guitars.
You totally missed the point. Did you read the OP?
|
About the actual state of map control in SC2:
It was all named by Socke, when he was at MrBitter for a PvT special: "That was dumb. I don't know why I moved out there, I shouldn't leave my base."
At least for Protoss, there is few reward and high risk moving out for map control. Why is that?
1) Fast units now can be strong, too: Stimmed MM is hilariously fast while beeing hilariously strong. This means moving out now always means a huge risk
2) I'm failing to see an actual use for Protoss having map control in many situations. Protoss just wants to sit back and have three bases, so their eagerness to gain map control is rather low.
Also: Even if the opponent takes more bases, just let him do, no reason to hinder him. More than 3 doesn't provide a lot of use, anyways, and if he spends additional 500-800 minerals in non-army units before the push comes, that only benefits Protoss.
So, the ratio of advange/risk of the ressource Map Control is really, really bad for Protoss. No wonder most Protoss just play 3-base-deathball!
I think due to weaker defense and faster units dealing more damage, the risk of map control became higher for every race eventually .
|
I feel like PvT especially favours the non attacker to much, Stim kiting is so strong and so is protoss ff/zealot blocking when defending. It leads to 2 balls of MMMGV vs Colossus, Gateway units running around trying to get a better positional on each other. If terran gets a good EMP/Picks of colossi they win, if protoss gets a good engagement they win. Feels incredibly boring to watch/play
|
I'm finding myself slowly agreeing with lots of the points brought up in OP. I do find that BW games tend to be more epic. But I'm undecided on whether that's due to the quality of players or endemic issues with the game, or both. Let me explain.
I think lots of the issues brought up are due to two main symptoms:
1) abilities that negate retreats, such as FF and stim/conc, and to a lesser extent, fungal (lesser because it's rarer at the moment)
2) units can clump up so much, which has two effects:
2a) compact packs of ranged high DPS are extremely effective, such as typical bioballs and
2b) AoE attacks, despite being "nerfed" relative to BW, are actually deadlier (smart casting also helps with this)
The end result of all this is that battles are very decisive and very quick. This makes powerful army pushes more relevant than retaining map control. It's just a more efficient usage of APM.
With all this said, I believe it is possible for players to overcome these issues to go with a map control BW-esque style - and in fact, zerg is often forced into this - but it would require insane APM and multitasking. Just see those micro bot vids to see what's capable with perfect unit splitting (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057).
So to me, the questions are:
A) Will players reach the level of skill required to play a BW-style game, or is the skill and APM required practically impossible?
B) If it's the latter, is the solution to "slow down" the game? Or would it require directly addressing the above symptoms, by nerfing/redesigning anti-retreat abilities and unit clumping?
|
Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. As players get better and better, the quality of games can only go up. I thought your picture of battles in BW vs battles in SC2 was pretty interesting, but I don't know if I agree with what you're saying there. Sure your average diamond/masters game is going to end with a relatively bland, but we've seen some really amazing battles like....
TSL Spoilers:
+ Show Spoiler +ThorZain vs MC g5 ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2CzSU.jpg) Circled we have 2 PDD's, one of which has just been feedback'd, hallucinated units, collosi positioning away from vikings, stalkers blinking up to take out the vikings, and tanks remaining unsieged while the zealots are still alive. Also note that there are zealots stuck behind some of the hallucinations, showing that even the best of the best can still improve their unit control significantly.
|
On April 24 2011 12:31 lbmaian wrote:
I think lots of the issues brought up are due to two main symptoms:
1) abilities that negate retreats, such as FF and stim/conc, and to a lesser extent, fungal (lesser because it's rarer at the moment)
2) units can clump up so much, which has two effects:
2a) compact packs of ranged high DPS are extremely effective, such as typical bioballs and
2b) AoE attacks, despite being "nerfed" relative to BW, are actually deadlier (smart casting also helps with this)
The end result of all this is that battles are very decisive and very quick. This makes powerful army pushes more relevant than retaining map control. It's just a more efficient usage of APM.
This guy basically just nails it. Even if there were Lurkers, Spider mines, or whatever one would ask to bring back from BW that you think would "fix" this game, these factors lead to battles ending quickly and decisively. Since units are really efficient with clumping/firing/better targeting AI, and since splash damage is so deadly due to the clumping effect, it is entirely possible to lose your whole army in 10 seconds and not being able to come back unless you trade evenly. And if your opponent has better upgrades/more army value/higher tech/more splash damage, he won't lose that many units compared to you, and he will get the win no matter what after that point. This can most clearly be seen in TvP, after Toss gets the HTs out, with an army composition mainly made of infantry, it is almost impossible to trade efficiently without well aimed EMP rounds. However, if you cannot, then Protoss will crush your force because storm will devastate it.
So actually, the issue is much more different than unit interactions working different in SC2 compared to BW. Not saying it has no effect, but in my opinion, it is much less than what OP talks about. The trick is that in a game released in 2010, which has the potential of a gigantic market compared to 12-13 years ago, you are going to have these features no matter what. Not just that, it is logical to improve these because well, why not? If you are making a new game, these things just better be improved too.
So what can be changed? First of all I don't believe the changes to these features that effected the battles, is in no way a fault in game design. I explained the reasons for this above. What can be done to change this, is giving player more units that can change the tide of the battle if used well. If every race had a unit similar to sentry, easily accessible and potential game changer in terms of defending all-ins (but not that effective in offense without an upgrade which can be researched in late game), the games would be much better to watch as a spectator and much more fun to play.
|
What SC2 is missing ?
1). Weak and almost non-existant powerful static defense such as spider-mine/tanks/lurkers
2). Powerful splash dmg dealer such as plague/tanks/lurkers/spider-mine/irradiate...(only fungal, HSM is pure shit, tanks with 35 core dmg are pure shit etc...)
=> These 2 things combines with the fact that massive armies are now much more easy to micro ... In the end, what we have is a lot of boring games where 150-200 food army battles 150-200 food army for a few minutes.
Once the 3 races will have powerful spells and units to counter massive clumped armies and better static defense as well (hope HotS wouldn't decieve me), the game will get infinitely better.
Also one thing which bugs me is that the dropships are just much more slower in Starcraft 2 than in BW, so harassing competent Protoss with Blink and/or Zerg with Muta and/or Terran with vikings/stimmed marines is close to impossible.
|
On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
Player-unit interaction.
...
If we take a moment to consider BW spellcasters, we can see that not only did BW spellcasters involve massive player-unit interaction to use properly but also player-unit interaction to combat. Psi storm required tons of apm to use effectively or to dodge; irradiate could be used to massacre high value zerg units but it could also be turned against you; and dark swarm required exquisite levels of control on both sides. When you see a dark swarm get thrown up in a TvZ you don't go, "well that sucks, I need to kill defilers faster", you unsiege your tanks, run out of lurker range and keep raining shells because dark swarm assists zerg units rather than directly hindering terran units. I mean, obviously it hinders terran units to an extent, but you are able to mitigate damage and micro out of it, there's not an instantaneous downpour of lasers down on your army because staple damage dealers required setup time. It's not like it was easy for the zerg to use properly either, it wasn't a fire and forget spell like forcefield. After it was casted both players were microing their asses off.
This is it for me. The following is a list of some of my favorite common interactions as a spectator in both SC2 and BW. The list excludes very rare events (nukes, Seeker Missile, Optic flare, Lockdown, etc)
(BW) Mass bio vs defiler tech late-game TvZ.
(BW) Z breaking mech in late-game ZvT.
(BW) 2port wraith TvZ and the hydra, spore defense.
(BW) Stop lurkers and aggressive vessel-less bio. ZvT
(BW) Sair-reaver and the spore/hydra defense. PvZ.
(BW) Mass hydra vs reaver or HT. ZvP
(BW) Statis'ing arbiter vs EMP'ing science vessel TvP.
(BW) Reaver drops early PvT.
(BW) vulture harass in PvT.
(BW) Dropships vs. dropships late game TvT.
(BW) HT drops, (BW specifically because it's rare in SC2).
(SC2) Burrowed banelings. TvZ.
(SC2) Medivac harass, specifically TvP.
(SC2) Ghost vs HT. TvP.
(SC2) Baneling/muta vs marine/tank.
(SC2) MKP style vs standard bio/tank TvT
In my opinion, it just comes down to the quantity of interesting interactions. BW has plenty in many of the matchups. SC2 just seems to have fewer interesting interactions.
|
On April 25 2011 06:14 TeWy wrote:
What SC2 is missing ?
1). Weak and almost non-existant powerful static defense such as spider-mine/tanks/lurkers
2). Powerful splash dmg dealer such as plague/tanks/lurkers/spider-mine/irradiate...(only fungal, HSM is pure shit, tanks with 35 core dmg are pure shit etc...)
=> These 2 things combines with the fact that massive armies are now much more easy to micro ... In the end, what we have is a lot of boring games where 150-200 food army battles 150-200 food army for a few minutes.
Once the 3 races will have powerful spells and units to counter massive clumped armies and better static defense as well (hope HotS wouldn't decieve me), the game will get infinitely better.
Also one thing which bugs me is that the dropships are just much more slower in Starcraft 2 than in BW, so harassing competent Protoss with Blink and/or Zerg with Muta and/or Terran with vikings/stimmed marines is close to impossible.
Posts like this are like posts during beta 200/200 a move army and thats it...
Chcek how some players are becoming realy good at this game like the TSL3 MC vs ThorZaIN and you will see much more than only 200 armies fighting few minutes and thats it...
There are already some mechanics that alow you to stay alive even if you lose your army..
PF for terran
Burrowed banelings can do a good amout of dmg such as spider mines in BW sure it is not so devastating vs armored but still...
Warp in sentries delaying the push..
PS: regarding your silly post tanks do only 35 dmg... In BW the AI was much much worse nad the slash dmg was hitting always less units... And from BW dmg and armor types siege tanks in BW were hitting small targets for 35 dmg 
I think that SC2 is a great game and will become only better with the upcoming expansions.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
I agree that in fact lurker and spider mines might be too powerfull in sc2(they would have to be nerfed accordingly due to the clumping effect) The clumping AI really is a problem in SC2. However changing THIS would mean an entire OVERHAUL of the game engine and well, game really. And I don't see that happening sadly. (Why would Blizzard change their entire game for E-sports purposes?).Therefore I am skeptical on this point. We do however need more defenders advantage, far too often do we see forced base races in SC2 in my opinion.
and people please
STOP trying to say Vulture mines are the same as Burrowed banelings.
Vulture mines:
Have a trigger range, allowing them to be ''dragged'', banelings are static.
Will deal tremendous damage, 125 explosive damage, less depending on unit typ and radius.
Come with vultures, a cheap unit, 75 minerals and good for harass aswell.
Mines take no supply, sure you need vultures but you can use these elsewhere, and if the vultures die, they stay.
Mines can be placed on the run(E.G when attacking an expansion, one can instantly put down mines) or in the more famous scenario, surround a group of dragoons, place mines around them and instantly take them out.
25 minerals/mine on average+the unit itself(said before but just putting emphasis on it).
Mines synchronize exceptionally well with siege tanks as a minefield to protect them
Banelings:
Takes food(Negligble though)
are static(they do not move at all or can be dragged such as mines)
25 minerals and 25 gas EACH.
Deals only 47 damage to light at most, even less to armored.
Requires beforehand placement(Vultures can just put them quickly down)
Has little to no synergy with the rest of the race(E.G , a large ranged unit like the siege tank, sure there is the broodlord but Vikings don't get hit by banelings and stalkers take a cost inefficient amount of damage from them.
so please, stop saying burrowed banelings are the same as vulture mines.
|
I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units.
|
That was a great OP, exciting to read.
However, this is still a very young game, and the players at the highest levels...I don't know how else to say this- suck (compared to the mastery we see in BW). They make huge amounts of mistakes. They position their units incorrectly, they 1-control group their armies, etc etc. There's just a lot of bad play due to how new the game is.
I see doom and gloom though too. The battles are just too-high dps and people get caught off guard and rolled so fast that I wonder if a higher overall level of play can change the one-shot-dead nature of the games we see.
But it's still way too early to write the game off as less skillful, less exciting, or whatever. I can imagine a future of SC2 that involves battlefield control in every game. We're still at a point where, essentially, two world-class players macro up to max armies and run them at each other, or else they sort of cheese each other with timing attacks. The subtleties are showing themselves every month, little by little. I have hope for the game. Maybe the timing attacks will be solved to a high degree. That alone would advance the game tremendously.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 25 2011 09:11 nepitolko wrote:
I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units.
It has been said before if you read through the thread, but I will explain once again.
Units clump by nature(or rather AI), this makes aoe attacks too powerfull, hence for example Psi storm was nerfed to 80 damage, and a smaller radius. What this means is that that there is no such thing as a defenders advantage comparable as to Brood War. You could hold off an entire slew of hydras with proper storms. These storms were very strong, but due to the nature of the pathing AI it would not hit a retarded amount of units. AOE is too powerfull in SC2 yet also to weak in SC2, there is a reason why the Collosi is so powerfull. It is a ranged, fast(relativly), mobile(Cliffwalking over units),powerfull AOE damage unit. 112 psi storm large radius would be too powerfull against the clumping AI, yet such a mechanic is vital to the defenders advantage. The same thing is with lurkers and spider mines if they would be introduced into SC2. In ScBW, these powerfull storms, lurker placement and spider mines would make or break your game, due to the nature of the SC2 AI , these things would be blatantly overpowerd. Yet it is these mechanics which make the defenders advantage and micro so neccesary.
Not to mention that you have visuals too, in SC2 you see a ball vs a ball, in BW you had streams of units basically(If you have ever seen a PvT where a horde of zealots and dragoons charged into a tank line, you know what I am talking about) While in SC2 it is ball engages ball.
For Protoss there is no reason NOT to clump your units, in fact it is encouraged to do so because it makes your units much more powerfull.
Clumping AI also causes melee units to be much less powerfull then their BW counterparts. There is little to no surface area, this makes ranged units much more powerfull. There is auto-surround to supposedly make up for it, but it does not. Zerglings are basically cannon fodder and even for a mineral dump, relativly bad due to this effect.
Now really, would you want to see Ball A engage ball B or to see units streaming in from different directions?Because the former is happening right now. The fact that they are in a ball coupled with the powerfull aoe makes battles last incredibly short, which is detrimental to specatorship.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2011 09:25 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 09:11 nepitolko wrote:
I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units. It has been said before if you read through the thread, but I will explain once again. Units clump by nature(or rather AI), this makes aoe attacks too powerfull, hence for example Psi storm was nerfed to 80 damage, and a smaller radius. What this means is that that there is no such thing as a defenders advantage comparable as to Brood War. You could hold off an entire slew of hydras with proper storms. These storms were very strong, but due to the nature of the pathing AI it would not hit a retarded amount of units. AOE is too powerfull in SC2 yet also to weak in SC2, there is a reason why the Collosi is so powerfull. It is a ranged, fast(relativly), mobile(Cliffwalking over units),powerfull AOE damage unit. 112 psi storm large radius would be too powerfull against the clumping AI, yet such a mechanic is vital to the defenders advantage. The same thing is with lurkers and spider mines if they would be introduced into SC2. In ScBW, these powerfull storms, lurker placement and spider mines would make or break your game, due to the nature of the SC2 AI , these things would be blatantly overpowerd. Yet it is these mechanics which make the defenders advantage and micro so neccesary. Not to mention that you have visuals too, in SC2 you see a ball vs a ball, in BW you had streams of units basically(If you have ever seen a PvT where a horde of zealots and dragoons charged into a tank line, you know what I am talking about) While in SC2 it is ball engages ball. For Protoss there is no reason NOT to clump your units, in fact it is encouraged to do so because it makes your units much more powerfull. Clumping AI also causes melee units to be much less powerfull then their BW counterparts. There is little to no surface area, this makes ranged units much more powerfull. There is auto-surround to supposedly make up for it, but it does not. Zerglings are basically cannon fodder and even for a mineral dump, relativly bad due to this effect. Now really, would you want to see Ball A engage ball B or to see units streaming in from different directions?Because the former is happening right now. The fact that they are in a ball coupled with the powerfull aoe makes battles last incredibly short, which is detrimental to specatorship.
What I don't understand is why there isn't more unit splitting by players with notoriously high APM(WC3 and BW pros most notably). They know that the AI's tendency to clump significantly empowers AoE, and with it being such an advantage for T and P especially(fungal probably isn't used enough to justify a lot of splitting v Z), why wouldn't they try to space out at least some of their units?
|
there's still 2 more expansion and patches coming out for SC2, maybe it will never be like BW but it may become another whole new exciting game away from BW's shadow.
|
There are some strategic mechanics that imo every race should have: Such as drops, siege units and even mines (traps has always been a huge part of war.)
|
On April 25 2011 09:44 Daralii wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2011 09:25 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 09:11 nepitolko wrote:
I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units. It has been said before if you read through the thread, but I will explain once again. Units clump by nature(or rather AI), this makes aoe attacks too powerfull, hence for example Psi storm was nerfed to 80 damage, and a smaller radius. What this means is that that there is no such thing as a defenders advantage comparable as to Brood War. You could hold off an entire slew of hydras with proper storms. These storms were very strong, but due to the nature of the pathing AI it would not hit a retarded amount of units. AOE is too powerfull in SC2 yet also to weak in SC2, there is a reason why the Collosi is so powerfull. It is a ranged, fast(relativly), mobile(Cliffwalking over units),powerfull AOE damage unit. 112 psi storm large radius would be too powerfull against the clumping AI, yet such a mechanic is vital to the defenders advantage. The same thing is with lurkers and spider mines if they would be introduced into SC2. In ScBW, these powerfull storms, lurker placement and spider mines would make or break your game, due to the nature of the SC2 AI , these things would be blatantly overpowerd. Yet it is these mechanics which make the defenders advantage and micro so neccesary. Not to mention that you have visuals too, in SC2 you see a ball vs a ball, in BW you had streams of units basically(If you have ever seen a PvT where a horde of zealots and dragoons charged into a tank line, you know what I am talking about) While in SC2 it is ball engages ball. For Protoss there is no reason NOT to clump your units, in fact it is encouraged to do so because it makes your units much more powerfull. Clumping AI also causes melee units to be much less powerfull then their BW counterparts. There is little to no surface area, this makes ranged units much more powerfull. There is auto-surround to supposedly make up for it, but it does not. Zerglings are basically cannon fodder and even for a mineral dump, relativly bad due to this effect. Now really, would you want to see Ball A engage ball B or to see units streaming in from different directions?Because the former is happening right now. The fact that they are in a ball coupled with the powerfull aoe makes battles last incredibly short, which is detrimental to specatorship. What I don't understand is why there isn't more unit splitting by players with notoriously high APM(WC3 and BW pros most notably). They know that the AI's tendency to clump significantly empowers AoE, and with it being such an advantage for T and P especially(fungal probably isn't used enough to justify a lot of splitting v Z), why wouldn't they try to space out at least some of their units?
Pros usually do space out their units when taking a stationary position. Terrans usually spread out their bio into a decent conclave during a TvP when anticipating the Protoss push. Likewise, Protosses sometimes do the same for their deathballs. Terrans also preemptively spread their tanks and marines when holding a position during a TvZ in anticipation of Banes and Infestors.
However, units clump up again when the army moves, and pros usually spend a lot of their APM continuously moving and repositioning their army. Since the easiest way to move armies around in SC2 is via 1 control group, a lot of this repositioning comes in the form of balls.
I have a feeling that a lot of the clumping is due to each unit having a sort of "magnetic" attraction to each other when moving around in a shared control group. I've always wondered how the pathing AI would act if they removed this magnetic clumping attraction.
|
On April 25 2011 09:53 ejozl wrote:
There are some strategic mechanics that imo every race should have: Such as drops, siege units and even mines (traps has always been a huge part of war.)
One thing SC2 zerg players can more is to burrow banelings on drop spot to catch terran's dropship.
|
On April 25 2011 10:00 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 09:44 Daralii wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2011 09:25 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 09:11 nepitolko wrote:
I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units. It has been said before if you read through the thread, but I will explain once again. Units clump by nature(or rather AI), this makes aoe attacks too powerfull, hence for example Psi storm was nerfed to 80 damage, and a smaller radius. What this means is that that there is no such thing as a defenders advantage comparable as to Brood War. You could hold off an entire slew of hydras with proper storms. These storms were very strong, but due to the nature of the pathing AI it would not hit a retarded amount of units. AOE is too powerfull in SC2 yet also to weak in SC2, there is a reason why the Collosi is so powerfull. It is a ranged, fast(relativly), mobile(Cliffwalking over units),powerfull AOE damage unit. 112 psi storm large radius would be too powerfull against the clumping AI, yet such a mechanic is vital to the defenders advantage. The same thing is with lurkers and spider mines if they would be introduced into SC2. In ScBW, these powerfull storms, lurker placement and spider mines would make or break your game, due to the nature of the SC2 AI , these things would be blatantly overpowerd. Yet it is these mechanics which make the defenders advantage and micro so neccesary. Not to mention that you have visuals too, in SC2 you see a ball vs a ball, in BW you had streams of units basically(If you have ever seen a PvT where a horde of zealots and dragoons charged into a tank line, you know what I am talking about) While in SC2 it is ball engages ball. For Protoss there is no reason NOT to clump your units, in fact it is encouraged to do so because it makes your units much more powerfull. Clumping AI also causes melee units to be much less powerfull then their BW counterparts. There is little to no surface area, this makes ranged units much more powerfull. There is auto-surround to supposedly make up for it, but it does not. Zerglings are basically cannon fodder and even for a mineral dump, relativly bad due to this effect. Now really, would you want to see Ball A engage ball B or to see units streaming in from different directions?Because the former is happening right now. The fact that they are in a ball coupled with the powerfull aoe makes battles last incredibly short, which is detrimental to specatorship. What I don't understand is why there isn't more unit splitting by players with notoriously high APM(WC3 and BW pros most notably). They know that the AI's tendency to clump significantly empowers AoE, and with it being such an advantage for T and P especially(fungal probably isn't used enough to justify a lot of splitting v Z), why wouldn't they try to space out at least some of their units? Pros usually do space out their units when taking a stationary position. Terrans usually spread out their bio into a decent conclave during a TvP when anticipating the Protoss push. Likewise, Protosses sometimes do the same for their deathballs. Terrans also preemptively spread their tanks and marines when holding a position during a TvZ in anticipation of Banes and Infestors. However, units clump up again when the army moves, and pros usually spend a lot of their APM continuously moving and repositioning their army. Since the easiest way to move armies around in SC2 is via 1 control group, a lot of this repositioning comes in the form of balls. I have a feeling that a lot of the clumping is due to each unit having a sort of "magnetic" attraction to each other when moving around in a shared control group. I've always wondered how the pathing AI would act if they removed this magnetic clumping attraction.
At the same time, a lot of players continue to have their entire army(spell casters included) on one hotkey. Why not just space out your main force between 3 or 4 hotkeys? It both reduces the threat of AoE's and increases the threat melee units pose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
