EPTDynamic Unit Movements, Your Thoughts? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
or are we talking about giving units dragoon brains? because if we are then that's a complete step backwards, blizzard should be trying to make a modern RTS which can rival BW, not a prettier version of it. | ||
|
JFiction
Canada23 Posts
| ||
|
Drayne
Canada239 Posts
Best thing is SCBW is still alive.. so you can have best of both worlds. Im not saying your idea is horrible, but i really dont see it going live. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
Making a game that's visually appealing to spectators is extremely important to e-sports, possibly more than balance. A major complaint I've always had about SC2 is that units clump up far too much, which has the following side effects: - Making battles feel smaller. No more massive, epic battles that cover several screens. Now everything has to be condensed into a ball. - Forces AoE spells to look far less impressive. Everything AoE has to be tiny and weak to make up for the fact that units clump up too much. - Drastically weakens melee units. Even if the stats are the same, the fact that ranged units ball up make them far stronger than in SC1 because balling up makes it far harder for melee units to attack. Zealots and zerglings are essentially nothing more than meatshields in large battles, whereas in SC1 they were viable damage dealing units in their own right. - Ruining the large numbers feel of the zerg. It always amazes me how zergling packs manage to look small even when there's a hundred of them. Zerg would look so much more awesome if they were more spread out. - Harder to tell units apart, making the game less visually clear to casual and dedicated viewers alike. Obviously a change like this would have to happen in an expansion since it would require major rebalancing. But then again, expansions are all about making large shifts in the game, and I really think SC2 could benefit massively from this. I really hope Blizzard considers this, as I've never liked unit clumping since beta, and I still don't now. | ||
|
Rareware
Canada340 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:10 K3Nyy wrote: Wait what? Siege tanks in SC2 are shit compared to SC1 tanks lol. In SC1, every time tanks shoot, my dragoons turn to blue goo. Keep in mind Siege Tanks in SC2 were originally like Siege Tanks in BW, but have received many nerfs most likely due to the clumping nature of units in SC2. | ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
Removing this tension will not only dump down the game and make it more boring it will also result in a massive balance change since most of these AOE-units can only be effective if they have the chance to hit at least some clumped up units. For example Banelings can only be cost effective if they can hit at least 2 marines and even then it's not really an even trade. If templars and sentries are already split while moving around how are you going to land effective EMPs? Not only would this be a massive nerf to AOE-Units it would also make tier 1 units incredibly effective and probably result in very one dimensional game play. You would either have to buff AOE-units again which would deny all the positive effects of this change or there would be no more answer to massing tier 1 units. Just think of how effective Marine pushes can be right now and how they are being dealt with. It always involves some sort of AOE-units like tanks, banelings, infestors or collosus. In TvT and TvZ this dynamic would change drastically. I am not quite sure about TvP since it s not really effective to spread your marines against gateway collosus but if you think about the standard bio ball it would still be a lot scarier to fight against without effective AOE-damage. Another question is how the units would behave when fighting. Would they just clump up again which would change nothing about how effective AOE-units are in this game or would they stay separated which would result in massive problems for map design because as stated above you would need a lot more space to properly fight with big armies or a lot of units would be blocked which would look really stupid and unaesthetic. So the maps would have to be a lot bigger and chokes would have to be a lot bigger which would cause a lot of balance problems as well. GSL maps already changed the game play significantly. Just think of the sentry: Would the forcefield stay the same size or would it need to be bigger? If you consider these massive implications I don't think this would be a good idea in any way. Starcraft 2 would have to become a completely new game and Blizzard would have to start over with balancing unit relations in all matchups which will hopefully never happen. | ||
|
SwirlQ
United States148 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:17 Samhax wrote: 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. I think your are completely wrong, marines would actually have less DPS density while taking less dmg from aoe at the same time. A big part of why zergs dont go pure muta-ling is because the ball of marines has reduced surface area as opposed to a spread. ( thats also why mutas rape pre-spread marines ) | ||
|
nyc863
200 Posts
along these lines, it would be a much more interesting game if the overall damage, fire rate and movement speeds were reduced to that shown with "normal" speed games. You could increase probe/scv/drone speed to make mining less painful, or start with more drones/probes/svcs and some bank to stop that boring first two minutes, were everyone does everything the same. If the battles were at "normal" speed them APM could be spent on awesome re-positioning, pulling back, burrow, blink, individual unit stim micro instead of just posture, engage, wait for either retreat or advance advantage to show itself.. It would make engagements so much more interesting and intense. Right now it is poor IMHO that every big battle - no matter what the composition - is over in seconds.. | ||
|
Nik0
Uruguay460 Posts
| ||
|
Gleve
United States206 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
sagdashin
Norway45 Posts
User was warned for this, and other low content posts | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:54 SwirlQ wrote: I think your are completely wrong, marines would actually have less DPS density while taking less dmg from aoe at the same time. A big part of why zergs dont go pure muta-ling is because the ball of marines has reduced surface area as opposed to a spread. ( thats also why mutas rape pre-spread marines ) I agree marines would have less dps density, but do you know that marines have an insane dps on their own? And basically it's the best unit in the game for their cost if you remove aoe units. So no i don't think i'm wrong when i say if units don't clump, it would be impossible for zergs to handle marines en masse. For protoss i don't know since guardian shield nerf their dps and colossi out ranged them. | ||
|
TheSubtleArt
Canada2527 Posts
On May 17 2011 10:10 K3Nyy wrote: Wait what? Siege tanks in SC2 are shit compared to SC1 tanks lol. In SC1, every time tanks shoot, my dragoons turn to blue goo. Well its pretty relative. Every time a siege tank in sc2 shoots, 10 of my banelings turn to green mist. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On May 17 2011 11:06 Samhax wrote: I agree marines would have less dps density, but do you know that marines have an insane dps on their own? And basically it's the best unit in the game for their cost if you remove aoe units. So no i don't think i'm wrong when i say if units don't clump, it would be impossible for zergs to handle marines en masse. For protoss i don't know since guardian shield nerf their dps and colossi out ranged them. Keep in mind that most people are aware that AoE attacks in general will have to buffed to compensate if such a change like this occurs. I also somewhat disagree with marines getting more powerful. High DPS density is a gigantic part of the reason why marines are so powerful in SC2 (with shields beings the other major part). Removing clumping would dramatically reduce marine strength since melee units won't immediately melt when attacking them, and stronger AoE prevents marines from getting out of hand. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13392 Posts
if we would make the units spread then issues like dragoon dancing would occur again and the game would feel terrible from a modern player perspective. collission size change could reduce the impact of clumping by making units spread a little more but not so much that the AI becomes completely clunky as a result. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
IMO, SC2's pathing AI feels smooth and intuitive to use, though at the cost of huge and ugly clumping. Although I'm all in support for getting rid of the dreaded clumping, I don't want AI that is as frustrating as that of BW. As long as ease of control is not sacrificed too much, I'm fully in support of this change. | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
On May 17 2011 11:12 Spawkuring wrote: Keep in mind that most people are aware that AoE attacks in general will have to buffed to compensate if such a change like this occurs. I also somewhat disagree with marines getting more powerful. High DPS density is a gigantic part of the reason why marines are so powerful in SC2 (with shields beings the other major part). Removing clumping would dramatically reduce marine strength since melee units won't immediately melt when attacking them, and stronger AoE prevents marines from getting out of hand. I'm not saying Marines would be more powerfull ( i think they would still the same), what i'm saying is, all the tools to deal with them would be inefficient and cost for cost they beat all the other units even if they are not clumping. | ||
| ||
