EPTDynamic Unit Movements, Your Thoughts? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Datum
United States371 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
I thought there were issues in BW also that had to be dealt with by using micro, I don't see how this is any different. The lesser player will use 1 control group and a-move, the better player will spread out his units for the best concave. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
The most exciting thing that this change could bring is a lot more powerful spells on spellcasters, something that I think SC2 is lacking a lot of currently because any form of AoE spellcasting is way too powerful currently with how units clump up. Another exciting thing is the fact that flanking tactics and setting up concaves would actually become an important factor in a lot of engagements and take a lot of micro and skill to do. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
| ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:35 Spawkuring wrote: I feel that the pros vastly outweigh the cons. In all honesty, the only downside to this change is messing up the baneling/marine relationship, but I'll gladly give some of that depth up if it means more visually pleasing battles, longer lasting fights, better melee units, better AoE attacks, and an overall greater feel to the game. Even if that were to somehow negatively impact the matchup, it would be a really easy fix. Just increase the splash radius of banelings. Kind of like how they reduced the radius of storms because of this issue to begin with, they would just have to do the opposite for banelings if a problem arose. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
Even with 255 unit selection, this change would not dumb down the game. A player who simply a-moves into the enemy, like in Broodwar, will fare FAR worse than a player who flanks or creates more surface area by maneuvering units. Splitting and maneuvering units is just as important, if not MORE important, if this change is implemented. In Broodwar, small task forces to attack high priority units like high templar were possible - lots of these 'harrassment' tactics to cut at the enemy force were available. In SC2, any such move with units will get those few units absolutely roasted by the deathballs. Now with this change, unit control is even more of a priority. You have the ability to pick off enemy high priority units, but you also have to defend yourself against such incisive attacks. You also still have to split and flank in order to achieve the best damage output. In short, the micro is still there, if not even more required than before. In addition, this change constitutes significant improvements in aesthetics, effectiveness of melee units, power (and thus spectator pleasure and excitability) in spells (AOE specifically), etc. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
Are those images just a simulation of the possible fix or are they an actual implementation into Galaxy Editor? | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:40 eviltomahawk wrote: Question: Are those images just a simulation of the possible fix or are they an actual implementation into Galaxy Editor? Looks like it's actually implemented in the Galaxy Editor. I don't think it would be a particularly hard change, but I'm not sure! I think it's in the Galaxy Editor also because if you look at the minimaps, the size of the blobs change (it's not photoshopped) | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5913 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:37 Angra wrote: Even if that were to somehow negatively impact the matchup, it would be a really easy fix. Just increase the splash radius of banelings. Kind of like how they reduced the radius of storms because of this issue to begin with, they would just have to do the opposite for banelings if a problem arose. It would really help the spectating. The only real balance issues are AOE and range because arcs would be different. | ||
|
Epoch
Canada257 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
Yes, they won't have 15000 APM, but they'll still be able to perform these micro techniques to a certain extent. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:43 teamsolid wrote: Personally, I'd rather see players fight this "UI" clumping to spread units themselves ala http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057 when faced against AOE. Yes, they won't have 15000 APM, but they'll still be able to perform these micro techniques to a certain extent. This is not even remotely possible for a human to pull off, not even 'to a certain extent.' Especially in a real game. :/ I agree that if that was even just a tiny bit possible, that would be sick to watch . . . but it's far from possible for even the best mechanical players in BW or SC2. On May 17 2011 12:42 Epoch wrote: What's wrong with having to split your units up yourself? It creates more micro, no? And as mentioned, the AOE in the game is balanced around the fact that the units clump. As I wrote earlier, you STILL have to split. If anything, you'll have to pay even more attention to your units. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:44 Superiorwolf wrote: This is not even remotely possible for a human to pull off, not even 'to a certain extent.' Especially in a real game. :/ Uh... I dunno about you, but I've seen some decent marine splits vs banelings. Don't see why splitting other units won't become more common as player skill rises | ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
With that said, there are lots of examples of bad game design in SC2. The unit pathing is just one example and this could definitely help both player and spectator alike. It isn't a big change whatsoever. In fact, I think it's more beneficial to the spectators more than anything else. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:46 teamsolid wrote: Uh... I dunno about you, but I've seen some decent marine splits vs banelings. Don't see why splitting other units won't become more common as player skill rises Player skill rises, but it doesn't allow for someone to do anything EVEN CLOSE to what is depicted in that video. You realize that in a split second, basically every zergling is moved individually? No matter how good people get, there's no way that's possible for a human AT ALL. Especially since the micro level is not going to improve significantly more than it is at already. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
| ||
|
darunia
United States139 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:46 StarStruck wrote: Yeah, they actually did it through the editor. That's why it's a lot more appealing than just theorycrafting. With that said, there are lots of examples of bad game design in SC2. The unit pathing is just one example and this could definitely help both player and spectator alike. It isn't a big change whatsoever. In fact, I think it's more beneficial to the spectators more than anything else. What are the other examples of bad game design? | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:48 darunia wrote: What are the other examples of bad game design? I would argue that warpgate tech is perhaps an example of bad game design. It removes defenders advantage and there is absolutely no reason not to get warpgates. If gateways were somehow superior to warpgates, this game element could be understandable in my eyes. That discussion is a bit tangential to what's being discussed here though, and will probably derail the thread. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On May 17 2011 12:48 darunia wrote: What are the other examples of bad game design? The majority of air units having a huge cooldown time between attacking and being able to move at full speed again, essentially negating any kind of harassment micro that you could pull off with them. Think wraith vs banshee. | ||
| ||
