EPTIm quite sure blizzard designed the game overall BASED on the AI system provided. Thats why we see storm and EMP radius decreased.
Dynamic Unit Movements, Your Thoughts? - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
Im quite sure blizzard designed the game overall BASED on the AI system provided. Thats why we see storm and EMP radius decreased. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:07 Toastmold wrote: Clumping is just part of the challenge of microing in SC2. Yearning for archaic unit movement seems pointless. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good. By more micro do you mean baby sitting all of your units because they often don't move where you tell them to move? In SC2 units move with so much efficiency that players are now realizing that they can no longer rely on bad AI to keep their units spread out, they actually have to do it themselves. I consider it very good AI if it doesn't auto-clump my units, making them a giant "AoE me" target. And anyone who actually has any experience with BW and SC2 knows that there isn't even a discussion about micro. BW requires far more micro hands down even if you take out all of the micro for re-pathing (which wasn't even that much and really only happened with certain units). | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 18 2011 03:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good. I'm not a fan of the BW pathing either, the units didn't do what you told them, and that's archaic. However, that doesn't mean units need to clump up like in SC2. | ||
|
Meatt
United States98 Posts
This will never go into effect though. Just spread your army instead of a-moving, imo. | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
On May 18 2011 02:55 Rabiator wrote: I seriously dislike the attitude that only progamers can tell if something is fair / balanced. The examples of IdrA / Artosis or Tyler / iNcontrol whining about things in a spectacular one-sided way kinda proves that your average progamer can be as biased as JoeAverage. You dont need to be master league to recognize problems; I noticed this exact problem of tight unit concentrations months ago and I am copper league ... It just takes an active brain which is capable to look at things objectively and NOT being involved in laddering or competitions is a great start NOT to be biased in one way or the other. If I may go off topic a bit. Do you think that you can be objective when you only have half the information? As long as a person isnt a top level player he will not have all the ingame knowledge and therefor not all the information that could make a fair discussion. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 18 2011 03:04 Gfire wrote: I'm not a fan of the BW pathing either, the units didn't do what you told them, and that's archaic. However, that doesn't mean units need to clump up like in SC2. Obviously. The reason units would do a 180 and go a completely different direction was the way the pathing AI re-calculated its path if it was block off. It doesn't have a direct relationship with the AI making units clump or not. It's been 13 years since BW, we can have the best of both worlds. I'm not sure this is a great idea. It would force changes in balance, the maps, and micro. And that might NOT be a good thing. A lot of people that are for this might play one game of it and go, "ew, wow, this is awful." But maybe not. This will never go into effect though. Just spread your army instead of a-moving, imo. The problem is that every single time you give a command to more than one unit at a time, it starts to clump these units. It doesn't matter if it's two units or 200 - the tendency for the AI is to automatically make the units gravitate towards each other, and that's not a good thing at all. It makes the micro demand far, far worse than the demand for pathing corrections in BW was if you want to keep all of your units separated, and we all know how annoying that was and how everyone says they're glad that's gone. I mean really, it's kind of hypocritical for people to say, "Oh, we don't want that archaic AI back that required me to babysit my units just to get them to move how I want, but it's ok for the same thing to happen in SC2." Tell me how having to babysit your units and keep them from clumping is really any different from the supposed babysitting we had to do in BW. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
Look at mutas.. zvt... vs thor zerg players now do the opposite of what was successful in bw. death balls are here to stay my friend. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On May 18 2011 02:49 Xlancer wrote: By more micro do you mean baby sitting all of your units because they often don't move where you tell them to move? In SC2 units move with so much efficiency that players are now realizing that they can no longer rely on bad AI to keep their units spread out, they actually have to do it themselves. of all the years i've played bw, i've never complained about unit pathing. this is a stereotype blown out of proportion, as if its something breaking the game. sc2 is an improvement but microing in bw was never "baby sitting". this change does not mean aoe will be useless, units will still clump up when attacking something anyways, this is just for moving the army. people seem to think this dynamic pathing will make splitting obsolete...no, it will be just as important. | ||
|
Juanald
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
Popss
Sweden176 Posts
On May 18 2011 02:56 tehemperorer wrote: That has less to do with the way the game is designed than with how players tend to use their units. People don't use deathballs as much in BW simply because they are not nearly as effective as in this game due to unit spreading, AI and the limited control group. The result? More harassment, more battle fronts and when they do consolidate their armies; better fights because its not a total massacre that is over in 10 seconds. If someone gave me a 140/200 BW army as smart as an SC2 army I would stomp all over a 200/200 army controlled by Flash with ease. My point is that the deathball mentality is not a case of SC2 players being less creative than BW players it's just that game designers handed us a deathball that is simply to good not to use. | ||
|
SlipperySnake
248 Posts
The whole point of SC2 is that the engagements depend on a variety of factors including not just micro but positioning and unit composition. Micro has moved up a level in my opinion from unit control to army control. I think the idea is that while microing individual units can be essential when in small groups there is a different style on control when it comes to large armies. Personally I think spreading your units manually encourages micro because a army that already is spread out will form the perfect arc a lot faster unless they are ridiculously far apart. Also avoiding splash damage is one of the most basic and skill intensive things in SC2, it forces players to add more hotkeyed groups without making the control scheme clunky. Also it allows for strategic attacks to be planned on dug in positions which is awesome. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 18 2011 02:56 JiYan wrote: i think it would actually only nerf EMP, siege tanks, storm, and fungal. it would not really affect colossus since the range of attack is in a line. units will line up anyways when they get within range to shoot so i dont think it would even affect colossus that much if at all On May 18 2011 03:01 NB wrote: if unit move like this all hellions gona becomes useless LOL... Im quite sure blizzard designed the game overall BASED on the AI system provided. Thats why we see storm and EMP radius decreased. So what? If units arent clumped up as much you can simply increase the radius again and have the same effect. Basically you are enabling the players to "take a risk" by clumping up their units manually so more of them would take damage from an AoE. I really hope there arent any more posts of "oh EMP, Storm, Tanks, Colossi would be nerfed" ... because a 7 days dead fish would recognize that everything needs to be adjusted again if this adjustment would be implemented into the game. On May 18 2011 03:04 Meatt wrote: I'm not sure this is a great idea. It would force changes in balance, the maps, and micro. And that might NOT be a good thing. A lot of people that are for this might play one game of it and go, "ew, wow, this is awful." But maybe not. This will never go into effect though. Just spread your army instead of a-moving, imo. Spreading your unit is STUPID if your opponent has his units in a tight ball. He has maximized dps while your dps arrives in small clumps of units, thus you die faster than he does. So no one does it. On May 18 2011 03:06 Deckkie wrote: If I may go off topic a bit. Do you think that you can be objective when you only have half the information? As long as a person isnt a top level player he will not have all the ingame knowledge and therefor not all the information that could make a fair discussion. Which information isnt available to me? I do see all the battles, see what they produce and I know the stats of the units. What is hidden? Please enlighten me ... If you cant do that I just have to assume you are wrong. The only thing that is "hidden" is the progamers strategy, but these always change with a shift in the balance of the game. Oh and I did notice that Steppes of War and close spawn Metalopolis / Temple are junk for Zerg due to their size (ground rush distance) WITHOUT being a progamer ... | ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
Just because units walk more efficiently doesn't mean its making the game any less exciting. I'm not watching a game for retarded unit movement. good strategy vs bad execution Like everyone says, Splash damage will be the most exploited mechanic and we won't see much deathballs in high level games. so i dont see the problem with that. have u guys seen marine micro vs banelings? imagine that in BW where marines are bumping into each other. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On May 18 2011 03:23 Lokian wrote: this is way blown out of proportion. sc2 AI movement is more dynamic than BW. The only reason why we see deathballs is because of mass unit control and less small group hotkey. you can get similar effect as BW units by having multiple hotkeys on small group. Just because units walk more efficiently doesn't mean its making the game any less exciting. I'm not watching a game for retarded unit movement. good strategy vs bad execution Like everyone says, Splash damage will be the most exploited mechanic and we don't see much deathballs in high level games. so i dont see the problem with that. have u guys seen marine micro vs banelings? imagine that in BW where marines are bumping into each other. having multi groups in sc2 will result in 1 big ball if you 1a2a3a all near the same spot. the only difference is how long you pause from 1a to 2a to 3a and so on and unit speed. no deathballs in high level games? :/ | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
On May 18 2011 03:22 Rabiator wrote: Which information isnt available to me? I do see all the battles, see what they produce and I know the stats of the units. What is hidden? Please enlighten me ... If you cant do that I just have to assume you are wrong. The only thing that is "hidden" is the progamers strategy, but these always change with a shift in the balance of the game. Oh and I did notice that Steppes of War and close spawn Metalopolis / Temple are junk for Zerg due to their size (ground rush distance) WITHOUT being a progamer ... The problem is that that is all you see. You dont see the other possibilties that could have made a game go completely different. You dont see the thought process that leads to the decisions that are made in a game. But most importantly you do not have any experience in the game itself. Not when it comes down to the true depth and capacity this game has. Oh wait I am sorry, you oviously do, because you can see the battles and the stats of the units. Even if you can see in some situation that something is broken, doesnt mean you truly understand why something is broken. and that should be reason enough not to think about balance as a "copper" player. | ||
|
ManaO
Italy185 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
People act like if players become better, then deathballs will disappear on their own or something, which isn't really the case. People use deathballs not because they aren't skilled enough to split them up, but because it's the best possible formation 9 times out of 10. Having a deathball formation means having maximized DPS and near immunity to melee units. The only real micro ever involved is making a concave, and little else. The only time splitting ever becomes required is against banelings, and I really don't think SC2 should keep its pathing just for the sake of one unit. Even against things like storms, it's often better to just dodge the storm rather than split your army simply because the entire battlefield will get carpeted with storms anyway, and you're better off just preventing the storms with EMP instead. Deathballs are extremely frequent at all levels of play, from casual to the hardcore. And it leads to visually confusing fights, ridiculously short battles, and weak melee units. I just don't think the game should remain as it is just because people want to keep their marine vs. baneling. There are numerous ways to keep that matchup interesting while also fixing all the problems that the new pathing system brings. | ||
|
Black Octopi
187 Posts
The only thing missing is someone with enough pen-skill to write a petition and proper article about it to get the word across, along with a custom version of one of the current popular maps to prove the point; or at least a video cinematic faithful to the mechanics before and after if tweaking pathfinding in the editor is close to impossible. One thing I do disagree in this thread is that a bigger collision radius is the answer. That will just result in a bigger balls! In essence it's just empty space between units, that no unit can go though. It's like saying making units bigger is the solution (since that's what increasing the collision radius would do, minus the visual model change). The point is units "shouldn't clump together", not [the models should] "never be able to touch each other". | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
On May 18 2011 03:42 ManaO wrote: Yeah the basic principle is good and I always hated that units clumped up on SC2, but the problem is that a lot of units (banelings, helions, colossi etc) are designed to work with clumped units and if you take that away they would have to re-design the whole game which they won't do, obviously. Many units had splash in BW as well, and it worked fine. Colossus would still be a good unit since most units form an arc when shooting, hellions are basically the lurker of SC2, so just attack from a good angle (meaning use positioning more efficiently) and they're fine. Banelings might be less efficient, but at the same time they will also spread out more (thereby hitting spread out units  ) and not insta-die to the first AOE attack that hits them.A wider battlefield means units suffer less concentrated fire, thereby dying slower, as well as making it easier to get a good overview of what's getting hit by what, what's dying etc, leading to more opportunities to micro. | ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
but when engaging in a battle, the player has to spread out to get greater surface area for maximum efficiency. is that still a ball? more like an arc. bw has that In a realistic deathball battle, the units behind other units wouldn't get much of a hit in. and relying on the AI to spread out for you takes time in which you can be attacking. which army would win? a nicely spread army vs deathball? in case of a 'diving deathball into enemy line,' that can be almost suicidal. The only difference from BW and sc2 is that bw units take FOREVER to spread out until they are in a good spot to shoot, whereas sc2, they get to their spot relatively quick. And somewhat making battles shorter. So essentially, people are disliking the fact that when moving across the map, the army is clumped up. SO what? does that matter so much than the actual engagement? It looks weird, okay. | ||
| ||
