EPTDynamic Unit Movements, Your Thoughts? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
| ||
|
FMJ
United States169 Posts
1) AOE spells will have their radii double or triple 2) maps will need to be 2-3 times as large. Chokes will need to be 2-3 times as large. Ramps will need to be 2-3 times as large. Leaving everything essentially the same, just more spread apart. | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
 | ||
|
MusiK
United States302 Posts
| ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
it would be pretty cool to see this kind of mechanic | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
Doesn't seem like a necessary 'feature' either since they already added in 255 selections. The second picture looks more realistic without units randomly pushing other units despite being smaller. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:11 Falcor wrote: This is never going to happen imo. The game was balanced around "balls" so if they implemented this everything would have to change rofl source please. game balanced around balls? yeah tell me where you saw that and get back to me. This change would be SO good but I doubt blizz will change it...one can only hope they look at it though. | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
| ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:12 Navillus wrote: And last another basically noncomplaint, I have no problem with the length of battles or the game, have not seen a trend of complaints to that effect and also think that this would just make battles less predictable and harder to play legitimately, also I don't think that battles are the major factor in game length, if it's a macro game it will go long no matter what, if it's all one base play (the more realistic cause for short games) then long battles will add a minute or two tops. i Actually think as the game progresses we will naturally see longer battles. Right now people just smash armies together and dont have to firm of a grasp of whos going to win because its hard to gauge the enemies ball strength. Once it becomes refined and people know whats going to win over what, people are going to pull in and out of battles and not just smash a bunch of shit together | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:15 Golgotha wrote: rofl source please. game balanced around balls? yeah tell me where you saw that and get back to me. This change would be SO good but I doubt blizz will change it...one can only hope they look at it though. He is not that wrong, aoe damage from units are tweak around this idea of clumping unit. If you want to change this, you have to tweak all the units. And i think the first change would be obviously marines, they would be too good if they didn't clump. | ||
|
ExquisiteRed
396 Posts
| ||
|
antilyon
Brazil2546 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:12 Navillus wrote: Ok this is apparently the most important point you have but all it is is an aesthetic complaint, I'd just as soon not change a major part of the game so it looks nicer to you. Somewhat more legitimate complaint (mostly because there actually is one) but again just aesthetics, when it comes to players, just play on low (most pros do anyway, if you don't want to... again don't change the game to make it easier on your eyes) Perhaps when it comes to spectating this makes sense, but first I don't want to change the game for spectators, also I have no problem seeing anything, I think it looks nice. This one's just silly, yes they've been nerfed a decent amount to balance the game this would undo all of that you're basically trying to say this would be good for balance when it would just throw everything off again. And last another basically noncomplaint, I have no problem with the length of battles or the game, have not seen a trend of complaints to that effect and also think that this would just make battles less predictable and harder to play legitimately, also I don't think that battles are the major factor in game length, if it's a macro game it will go long no matter what, if it's all one base play (the more realistic cause for short games) then long battles will add a minute or two tops. The thing is, if you spread more, the battles will take longer to finish, allowing more room to micro management.I think 90% of SC2 players want this.(And probably 100% of BW/SC2 players) But Blizzard would never change this =( | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
I don't really mind the ball mechanic myself. The ball is rarely the optional formation, and people are starting to do more spreads, concaves and other positional play instead. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
Combine
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:19 PH wrote: I think this should be implemented immediately, the baneling removed, lurker reintroduced, and storm rebalanced. I really like the idea of lurkers considering the reason they removed them was because the units clumped up so much. Imo the best part of the change is the chaos of it all. SC2 needs more controlled randomness. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:15 Golgotha wrote: rofl source please. game balanced around balls? yeah tell me where you saw that and get back to me. This change would be SO good but I doubt blizz will change it...one can only hope they look at it though. Are you serious? What do you think the game is balanced around, if not the existing conditions? On May 17 2011 10:19 PH wrote: I think this should be implemented immediately, the baneling removed, lurker reintroduced, and storm rebalanced. I think there's already the game for you: it's called BW. | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:19 PH wrote: I think this should be implemented immediately, the baneling removed, lurker reintroduced, and storm rebalanced. and siege tanks rebalanced and archons rebalanced and collosus rebalanced and infestors rebalanced etc | ||
|
WinteRR
Australia201 Posts
 ). BW tanks were REALLY powerful but I think in SC2 Siege tanks seem strong because of this clumped up unit mechanic (when in actual fact, they're relatively weak ~35 dmg or so compared to the 70 dmg of old) | ||
| ||
