EPTThe SC1 designers weren't stupid. Regen rate is a brilliant energy upgrade paradigm because it scales temporally, so brand new casters are marginally better, but ones you preserve are much better.
Dynamic Unit Movements, Your Thoughts? - Page 38
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
The SC1 designers weren't stupid. Regen rate is a brilliant energy upgrade paradigm because it scales temporally, so brand new casters are marginally better, but ones you preserve are much better. | ||
|
Sepheren
United States66 Posts
On May 17 2011 09:57 HawaiianPig wrote: This is really promising, and I've always maintained that blob on blob action is a big part of why SC2 is... the way it is, but I have trouble imagining Blizzard would implement such a massive change. Well Blizzard is providing a product. They want people to like and continue to buy their product. If enough of their consumers actively support such a change, i'm sure they'd love to do it. You get enough people to say the same thing and companies who are selling to those people, you get change. On May 17 2011 10:00 Koshi wrote: Everything you state would make this game more interesting IF it pays out like you say it will. However, by changing the dynamic unit movement you will also change the game. I don't know if I like that part. SCII is good as it is. For now. That's why you go play the customs that people make with these changes. Obviously if it doesn't work, then it's moot. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On July 07 2012 23:19 0neder wrote: Because based on screenshots, this is heterogenous and MM is homogenous, so it still doesn't solve the core issue. Also, SC2BW's Maverick seems to be developing this and is getting close IMO. + Show Spoiler + Wow, that's very exciting to see. But, I've given up all hope that Blizzard would attempt such a change. It's simply not gonna happen.  | ||
|
Dontkillme
Korea (South)806 Posts
 | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On July 09 2012 12:28 Sepheren wrote: Well Blizzard is providing a product. They want people to like and continue to buy their product. If enough of their consumers actively support such a change, i'm sure they'd love to do it. You get enough people to say the same thing and companies who are selling to those people, you get change. That's why you go play the customs that people make with these changes. Obviously if it doesn't work, then it's moot. Tell that to Bioware for the Mass Effect 3 ending, you're pretty much not right. I mean people have been bitching about shit Blizzard has done with it's last 3 games for years now, and they're still pretty shitty. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 09 2012 12:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Tell that to Bioware for the Mass Effect 3 ending, you're pretty much not right. I mean people have been bitching about shit Blizzard has done with it's last 3 games for years now, and they're still pretty shitty. True, but we have to keep trying while there is still a snowball's chance. If Blizzard thinks they can make money off esports and they think the esports community will be a more profitable long-term investment if they make changes we demand, then it could totally happen. We only need to convince a handful of people. | ||
|
Borkbokbork
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 09 2012 12:34 Dontkillme wrote: This would definetly help out terran because then we wont kill ourselves splitting our marines But banelings would get a radius buff... | ||
|
sureshot_
United States257 Posts
They would have to look at a lot of area-of-effect units. Although if I had to take a guess a simple increase in area would suffice as far as balancing is concerned. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On July 09 2012 13:43 sureshot_ wrote: They would have to look at a lot of area-of-effect units. Although if I had to take a guess a simple increase in area would suffice as far as balancing is concerned. If this change worked as intended you could even have the old powerful psi storm back in the game, among other things. | ||
|
MagmaPunch
Bulgaria536 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
Again, what does this do to workers that are mining? Inadvertent effects probably should be considered | ||
|
wcr.4fun
Belgium686 Posts
this is a great game showing how important unit movement is. especially after mutalisks come out. For example notice how jaedong captures the end part of baby's army by suprise when it's going up a ramp. This effectively cut baby's army in half. And baby can't jump to the rescue that easily because the units actually block each other. (around 10 minutes) | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
The more recent recommendation someone made of retaining group formations (really huge "magic box" size) is a bunch better idea than this I'd say. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On July 13 2012 07:11 Xapti wrote: One of the larger problems with this change is that it will weaken melee units like zerglings vs moving targets because the melee units will now interfere with each others movement. A simple example is 4 zerglings attacking a retreating SCV/drone/probe; when a zergling is in range to attack it, it will stop and attack, slowing down the other units. Right now the attacking zergling would get pushed aside a bit. The more recent recommendation someone made of retaining group formations (really huge "magic box" size) is a bunch better idea than this I'd say. Except that it doesnt really fix the problem. The modified movement mod ended up still looking pretty deathbally. Besides according to MavercK the magic box sizes for SC1 and SC2 are pretty much the same. | ||
|
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On July 14 2012 06:10 9-BiT wrote: When you have 2 years of balancing with how we are now, there is no way to undo it all and make it better than it is right now, even though in theory this is better. Wishful thinking. we're expecting a game to last 10+ years. to say, "we've come too far, we can't change now" is a horrible attitude when trying to make the best game possible. they have two expansions to deal with it and being lazy(i dont wanna do it again~ T.T) is no excuse. maybe thats just my view, i dont take excuses kindly. do what must be done. | ||
|
Serpest
United States603 Posts
On July 14 2012 06:16 jinorazi wrote: we're expecting a game to last 10+ years. to say, "we've come too far, we can't change now" is a horrible attitude when trying to make the best game possible. they have two expansions to deal with it and being lazy(i dont wanna do it again~ T.T) is no excuse. maybe thats just my view, i dont take excuses kindly. do what must be done. If they're lazy, then why the hell are we leaving them to balance for us? Why not create tournament maps with proper settings/balance? | ||
|
Acer1791
Germany182 Posts
On July 14 2012 06:23 Serpest wrote: If they're lazy, then why the hell are we leaving them to balance for us? Why not create tournament maps with proper settings/balance? cause 99,99..% of the people who bitch about blizzard and balance have no idea how to balance a game. its all "fanfiction" and in reality it would be far inferior to the state right now. | ||
|
Serpest
United States603 Posts
On July 14 2012 06:27 Acer1791 wrote: cause 99,99..% of the people who bitch about blizzard and balance have no idea how to balance a game. its all "fanfiction" and in reality it would be far inferior to the state right now. In all fairness then, who is enough of a realist/expert to balance the game? | ||
| ||
