In SCBW and W3, units move while avoiding friendly units, but in SC2, units move while pushing their own friendly units. (when on hold position, they avoid each other) This is where units tend to clump up, and this happens even when you move them just a couple of times. Units also clump up in small numbers as well.
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement. I think this is very important for e-sports.
If I had to list the advantages of removing the clumping of units:
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units. If you look at the units that do splash damage, siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth, most of them have been nerfed since beta. One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps. Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
If we end up getting rid of this issue, or units move more like in SCBW and W3, we probably need to tweak the balance again. However, if balance is something that needs to be gradually fixed, this issue should be something we need to change right now. As a SCBW and SC2 player, and an e-sports viewer, I write this to plead my case.
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.
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.
I'm all for reducing the clumping effect (I've thought for a while that it looks unnatural), but it seems to me that it runs the risk of (re?)introducing stupid AI when moving large control groups around - blocked units will go up ramps etc.
Of course, depending on your point of view that might not be a bad this (more micro potentially?).
And even if it is a good idea for gameplay reasons, how would something like that be changed, reasonably speaking? It might be possible to introduce it in HotS but it's changing a big thing in the game - beta would have been the time to do this.
Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
I think it would be difficult to implement this option now, because a lot of the aoe/splash damage abilities in sc2 are balanced around the fact that units generally clump (and it becomes the responsibility of the user's micro ability to keep them spread).
Micro battles like marine splitting against banelings, for instance, would become almost obsolete (and banelings themselves would be significantly weakened). It wasn't such an issue in wc3 I don't think, because of the size of the armies you would be individually controlling units anyway, but with 200/200 armies auto spreading I don't know if that would be a good thing for the game.
PlayXP is really stuck in the past eh? I'm not a fan of zeroing out all of the balance work blizzard has done so far in pursuit of something which may or may not improve the game, and where all the arguments come from different games.
I like this idea, aoe spells would require more skill on the other hand in the current pathing system spreading is a skill. But I prefer longer battles over spreading micro
Good article. I agree with most of what it says. The increased clumping of units in SC2 really turns the game into a-moved ball vs a-moved ball. It's something that I hope blizzard is considering for HotS.
Un-clumped units make for a more exciting game from a viewer's perspective IMO.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
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.
Micro battles like marine splitting against banelings, for instance, would become almost obsolete (and banelings themselves would be significantly weakened). It wasn't such an issue in wc3 I don't think, because of the size of the armies you would be individually controlling units anyway, but with 200/200 armies auto spreading I don't know if that would be a good thing for the game.
thats the first the that came to mind when i was thinking about this and the possibilities behind it. Changing something in the game that players should be doing themselves to better improve their chances in fights to me is a little overboard. Yes with how SC2 has been made tons of things are possible in the realm of making fights more safe for players who don't use important area of effect units. The real question is it the right thing to do, i personally don't think so in the future of sc2 i see more and more scenario's involving unit spread to be key to micro and battle engagements just like how the marine spread has been up to now.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
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.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
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.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units. If you look at the units that do splash damage, siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth, most of them have been nerfed since beta. One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps. Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
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.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
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.
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.
Wouldn't mind seeing zerglings kill colossus if they didn't have the autoclumping 'feature' 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.
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.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
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
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.
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.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
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.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
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.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units. If you look at the units that do splash damage, siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth, most of them have been nerfed since beta. One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps. Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
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.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
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)
It could be an interesting change, but every single unit in the game would most likely require rebalancing for it. So it's probably not worth the effort.
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.
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.
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.
I'd love to see this! I don't think Blizzard is aware enough to make a smart change like this but the least we can do is try to get the message out there...perhaps for HotS
K3ny, I think you misinterpreted my post (or I didn't construe it with too much care ).
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)
why would we remove micro from the game? doesn't make much sense to me at all. setting up your unit's positions both prior to an engagement and during the engagement are important aspects of the game that give players who can execute them skillfully an advantage, but you guys would rather eliminate that entire skillset?
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.
This is one of the key things I and I believe many others miss (perhaps more than anything) from SC:BW. This type of movement as opposed to the ball formation in SC2 is what made many BW battles more interesting and epic.
This is the kind of post u saw everyday in early beta, first day of beta you should have seen the auto-split on lings... i think blizzard is pretty happy with theyr game right now, this is not a balance change your asking... your asking blizzard to remake theyr whole game and it obviously wont happen.
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.
I'm a very strong advocate of this change. Even disregarding gameplay reasons, it just makes SC2 far better to watch in my opinion.
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.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
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.
Splitting units has become a staple skill in nearly all match ups for all races. You don't want to have these powerfull AOE-units to hit a big part of your army at once. This creates a big tension and is one of the reasons people like watching Sc2. Clumped up marines moving above creep: Will they be able to split before infestors arrive or banelings roll in?
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.
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.
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 )
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..
even though this could be an awesome change (after being tested and proven to be good), i think blizzard is too stubborn to make this change (too much rebalancing with aoe, "ball movement" was designed to work as intended, etc.) at least with current game, perhaps they'll be bold with the expansions.
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.
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 )
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.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
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.
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.
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 )
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.
I feel that this is unlikely to happen however increasing collission size would have a similar effect while retaining the current patching AI. I feel the clumping is a side effect of the much better pathing available in sc2 compared to bw.
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.
As long as the AI is still smooth and manageable, I'm all for this kind of dynamic unit movement.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
Saying this from experience, unclumped marines get wrecked by heavy zergling counts on even upgrades. The reason being is when the marines are balled up u can only get so many lings on 1 marine, unclumped however you can have 3-4 zerglings on a marine before they move on to the next marine. Why do you think when zerglings do so little damage to the ball, its because half of them cant find a place to hit the marines while all the marines are attacking them.
lol I just made a thread about how I think this game looks bad from clumping. You said it much better than I did however, and I like the pictures. I wish blizzard changed this.
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.
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 )
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.
Saying this from experience, unclumped marines get wrecked by heavy zergling counts on even upgrades. The reason being is when the marines are balled up u can only get so many lings on 1 marine, unclumped however you can have 3-4 zerglings on a marine before they move on to the next marine. Why do you think when zerglings do so little damage to the ball, its because half of them cant find a place to hit the marines while all the marines are attacking them.
What if you could purposefully clump units by spaming move command at center mass like you do with air units! And if you did this the AI realized what you were doing and keeps that formation. That way we can have these spread out armies AND the microability of bunching ranged units.
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.
i agree and i would welcome it if blizzard would change this.. but sadly, i doubt it
On May 17 2011 11:14 ZeromuS wrote: I feel that this is unlikely to happen however increasing collission size would have a similar effect while retaining the current patching AI. I feel the clumping is a side effect of the much better pathing available in sc2 compared to bw.
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.
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.
Are you serious? What do you think the game is balanced around, if not the existing conditions?
I agree with the OP. Units should have never been designed to clump up in a ball. Without a doubt, the pathing in BW was down right critical to its success. It allowed for large, epic battles that could last for minutes at a time. It allowed the best players to work miracles and defend with an inferior army, or attack into what seems to be an impenetrable tank line, and come out victorious. If you haven't watched a VOD of a high profile BW match, do it, and you'll understand.
Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way blizzard will ever change this. Sc2 is its own game, not bw with updated graphics. "Clumped up balls of units" is sc2, and it what the entire game is designed around. All balance reflects the fact that units clump. I'd love to see a reaver in sc2 lol. Anyway, I really hope this game can rise to the epicness that is "bw". We still have 2 expacs to see what bliz has in mind.
i think that units clumping adds a dimension to the game. eventually people will learn that to keep their army clumped up will make it so that units like banelings, tanks, and collosus (as well as infest, ghosts, and HT) are too strong and they'll start getting better splits.
sc2 is easier to play than BW as it is, army control should be something that NOBODY can perfect so that there is more room for pros to show off their skill.
On May 17 2011 11:37 ishboh wrote: i think that units clumping adds a dimension to the game. eventually people will learn that to keep their army clumped up will make it so that units like banelings, tanks, and collosus (as well as infest, ghosts, and HT) are too strong and they'll start getting better splits.
sc2 is easier to play than BW as it is, army control should be something that NOBODY can perfect so that there is more room for pros to show off their skill.
Its not about perfection, its about control. A good pilot is able to fly a fighter jet much better than a bad pilot, but lets see how they fair on a 747.
This is the same as BW and SC2. BW allowed you to move clumped OR spread units. SC2 only allows clumped. Lack of control exists everywhere in SC2.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
...O_O
You mad son. BW tanks give me nightmares. SC2 tanks remind me of my micromachines.
That being said, I really would love to see this. Especially as Zerg, it never seems like you have many units, just because of the clumping. Not to mention we could have HT actually do some significant damage again
Since the apm from BW has been freed up by MBS and other such nonsense, use it to position and control your army if you want to avoid 1-a slugfests. A better concave, spreading out to avoid area effects, and not having your shorter range units behind the longer range ones still benefit you. It's one of the few things where you can really make your style unique from other players, and where better players can get a real advantage.
A big part of micro atm ,especially Terran is splitting your units to reduce banelings,storm etc. To be honest it's fine as it is , because removing clumping would just dumb down the game.
On May 17 2011 10:54 Baum wrote: Splitting units has become a staple skill in nearly all match ups for all races. You don't want to have these powerfull AOE-units to hit a big part of your army at once. This creates a big tension and is one of the reasons people like watching Sc2. Clumped up marines moving above creep: Will they be able to split before infestors arrive or banelings roll in?
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.
Wait so you want the game being based around a bunch of useless clicks?
Banelings would be better against tanks because 1 tank shot won't kill 10 banelings.
At the same time it would make marines stronger against banelings.
At the same time it would make zerglings stronger against marines.
This means you wouldn't need to do marine tank with the same boring siege->stim->run-away every single TvZ and other builds would become viable.
just to note, 1a2a3a behaves same way as 1a unless you click on 3 different spots. doing 1a2a3a on same spot will result in 1 big ball.
as for "learn to not clump up your army", most players (i assume) micro splitting manually, not by control group. control would be for casters, blink stalker, etc., not for army splitting like marine vs baneling.
What you people simply don't understand is that Blizzard have not and will not make any changes to make this game any more similar to BW than it already is. So the bottom line is , if you like BW mechanics more ,go play BW.
Obviously would be very interesting. Hopefully for something like this, not TOO much will need to be changed fixed... for example, one reason why Marines are so good right now is because they can clump together so easily, and so can have many of them attack at once. However that will be very different if they're separated. (Well you would be able to spam click them into a center point to make them a bit more compact right? Until they separate again after moving too much?).
Psy Storm and Siege Tank nerfs could probably be reverted. Actually, probably not all the way... for example giving Psy Storm its old radius would be very deadly to mutas...
I'm guessing if they were to do this, they should probably do something in between; not too extreme on one side. The clumping right now is definitely something that should be dealt with, while the amount of space in the pictures above may affect the game too much and that amount of space isn't as necessary considering there is 0 space right now.
1. Very aesthetically pleasing 2. Makes the game much more fun, as AOE will once again become buffed in order to compensate 3. Battles last longer 4. Melee units no longer are useless vs ranged units 5. You will more often (as in BW) see many battles around the map simultaneously, creates for a more effective spectator experience
The one legitimate worry I think that someone posted is that moving up ramps will again be very annoying, but I think with SC2 engine it will not be so difficult as it was in Broodwar.
I would love to see this change implemented for HotS.
On May 17 2011 11:58 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: What you people simply don't understand is that Blizzard have not and will not make any changes to make this game any more similar to BW than it already is. So the bottom line is , if you like BW mechanics more ,go play BW.
Looks good. Don't forget that two expansions are coming out, so they can change anything at this point. They would never release a patch for Wings of Liberty with this change, but they do have the liberty to change all of the units in the expansions in order to re-balance the game around this sort of thing. Maybe Blizzard will see this thread and play around with it themselves.
On May 17 2011 09:55 CanucksJC wrote: This is a translation from a thread posted on PlayXP. Sorry for the messy translation lol :D
In SCBW and W3, units move while avoiding friendly units, but in SC2, units move while pushing their own friendly units. (when on hold position, they avoid each other) This is where units tend to clump up, and this happens even when you move them just a couple of times. Units also clump up in small numbers as well.
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement. I think this is very important for e-sports.
If I had to list the advantages of removing the clumping of units:
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units. If you look at the units that do splash damage, siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth, most of them have been nerfed since beta. One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps. Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
If we end up getting rid of this issue, or units move more like in SCBW and W3, we probably need to tweak the balance again. However, if balance is something that needs to be gradually fixed, this issue should be something we need to change right now. As a SCBW and SC2 player, and an e-sports viewer, I write this to plead my case.
This has bothered me for the longest time. It isn't just the fact they clump up together, but the units do tend to dance/push one another and they never get a shot off. Very reminiscent of dragoon AI and pathing. Stupid AI.
On May 17 2011 11:58 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: What you people simply don't understand is that Blizzard have not and will not make any changes to make this game any more similar to BW than it already is. So the bottom line is , if you like BW mechanics more ,go play BW.
we play both unlike some sc2 elitists
lol
I'm going to take it one step further. The vast majority of players who come from the BW camp play SC2 now.
You are talking about a very and I mean very small minority, so please drop it.
I just played the no deathballs map and for protoss it feels right. I think what would be nice is if the collosion path is higher, but you can force them to collide closer by spam clicking and would stay clumped put until directed to move elsewhere
On May 17 2011 12:14 dvide wrote: Looks good. Don't forget that two expansions are coming out, so they can change anything at this point. They would never release a patch for Wings of Liberty with this change, but they do have the liberty to change all of the units in the expansions in order to re-balance the game around this sort of thing. Maybe Blizzard will see this thread and play around with it themselves.
The thing is that people were asking for this change during beta, which is when things deep in the engine are a lot more likely to change. The odds of Blizzard implementing a change this big after the game's already out are slim to none.
Didn't someone make pretty much this same topic already a couple of weeks ago and it was met with harsh criticism because people didn't like the idea of "making the game easier" by removing the micro needed to split your units beforehand?
It seems people are much more receptive this time around.
I don't like it. SC2 is not BW, and one of the cool new micro tricks is overcoming the clumping. It takes a lot of precision and speed to split units. I think it would be a shame to get rid of splits.
Since the unit clumping makes for visually cluttered, short-lived battles, forces AoE abilities to be weak and unexciting, and doesn't feel like StarCraft, I can't understand why it's still in the game.
I'd consider this more a game design decision than a balance-focused one; any balance problems that come from this would only be temporary and lead to a better game IMCO.
I must have missed that thread, so I cannot comment on that matter. This PlayXP article is very easy to follow and it's testable.
Anyway, it's a simple pathing tweak.
On May 17 2011 12:29 Yotta wrote: Since the unit clumping makes for visually cluttered, short-lived battles, forces AoE abilities to be weak and unexciting, and doesn't feel like StarCraft, I can't understand why it's still in the game.
I'd consider this more a game design decision than a balance-focused one; any balance problems that come from this would only be temporary and lead to a better game IMCO.
This change will never happen. It would mean humongous balance redesign, which Blizzard will never do. Also, unit clumping is something that progamers will learn to overcome. It may take years, but micro will evolve to compensate for AI.
that would be great, but for now wouldn't the better player be one who uses multiple control groups and micros his units so they spread out?
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.
This change would make the game so much better than it is right now, for both spectators and players. I hope to god they do something like this for the game. All the numbered points in the OP are so insanely true, as well. I wanted to pick one or two to comment on, but the truth is, all 4 of them are right on the money.
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.
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.
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.
To all of the people arguing that this change represents a move to dumb down the micro and skill cap in the game, I would like to argue otherwise. And I personally believe that splitting gigantic clumps and then just slamming into each other is not a "cool micro trick" but rather the exact opposite.
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.
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)
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.
It would really help the spectating. The only real balance issues are AOE and range because arcs would be different.
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.
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.
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. :/
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
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.
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. :/
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.
Also, as a side note, the first Zerg image with the units balled up looks so ridiculous rofl. I can't believe that's actually how it is in the game, so sad.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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. :/
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.
Doesn't have to be lings vs tanks. Can be splitting vs colossi, vs EMPs, vs storm, vs fungals, etc something much more realistic but still worthwhile and impressive to watch.
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.
Fascinating to hear that this was done in the editor.
I'm really interested to play on this test map or perhaps even see this code being implemented into an actual map for testing.
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. :/
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.
Doesn't have to be lings vs tanks. Can be splitting vs colossi, vs EMPs, vs storm, vs fungals, etc something much more realistic but still worthwhile and impressive to watch.
I agree, that could be somewhat entertaining to watch, but with this change this kind of micro is still required. AOE spells will be buffed a lot. In Broodwar, storms vs hydras were actually very devastating and it was critical for a person to split and move hydras away from storms almost as soon as they were cast. Just a few seconds in the storm and all your hydras are roasted. So, this type of micro will still exist with the change proposed by the op, and I think it's extremely awesome to watch as well.
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. :/
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.
Doesn't have to be lings vs tanks. Can be splitting vs colossi, vs EMPs, vs storm, vs fungals, etc something much more realistic but still worthwhile and impressive to watch.
If they balanced AoE spells like those according to the new grouping up of units suggested in this thread, it would still require the same amount of micro. It would just be taking place in a larger radius for both the units and spells. It's why they nerfed things like storm so many times from the start. I think it's ridiculous to keep nerfing AoE spells when you can easily implement this, revert spells back to their original state, and have the exact same thing going on as there is currently, but in a more spread out, longer lasting, easier to watch form.
As much as how I love how the images look if this was to be implemented it would have been implemented since release.
As for implementing it now it would mean a total rebalance of the game(AOE would have to be bigger, Meleee units would be better with autosorround...etc). I think its time we accept that SC2 is not BW, and I like it that way. I mean I know many people wanted this game to be BW HD edition(judging by how many people want basically almost all new units out and the old units back) but the thing about that is that I want SC2 to be its own game and not a dumbed down BW.
As far as bad design, I guess I need to remind people that things they don't like != bad design but whatever. And people need to remember that SC2 is a game released in 2010 a modern game, game design has changed a lot since BW release, hell I am sure that if BW released as it is today it would be panned by most gamers.
Just my 2 cents on this. Would I like this? Yeah, it looks more natural. Does knowing this make SC2 less enjoyable to me? Not at all.
i loved this idea in beta, and almost a year later i still love it.
A lot of negative responses say something along the lines of "go play BW then, this is starcraft 2" and i hate that logic because from what ive been playing the battles dont even feel like starcraft.
So do i want BW with prettier graphics? honestly....YES I DO!!! with a couple of unit twists and different (by that i mean good different not like warp gates) design choices.
side: and im going to take it a step farther and say the sounds should also be more reminiscient of sc1/bw. we need hard hitting sounds that draw your attention and music that also reflects this.
I was just thinking about this myself a couple days ago. The units look so dumb and unrealistic clumping together the way they do in SC2. I hope it's not too late to change this, and that players would be patient if the game needs to be rebalanced around this.
I heartily agree with the spacing issue. It's not as exciting when an entire maxed out army is visible on one screen. I want action everywhere, spread across a large area!
On May 17 2011 13:17 Dawski wrote: i loved this idea in beta, and almost a year later i still love it.
A lot of negative responses say something along the lines of "go play BW then, this is starcraft 2" and i hate that logic because from what ive been playing the battles dont even feel like starcraft.
So do i want BW with prettier graphics? honestly....YES I DO!!! with a couple of unit twists and different (by that i mean good different not like warp gates) design choices.
side: and im going to take it a step farther and say the sounds should also be more reminiscient of sc1/bw. we need hard hitting sounds that draw your attention and music that also reflects this.
To be honest, this isn't really a BW thing, but just an RTS issue in general. Pretty much any strategy game benefits from spread out units because it's easier on the eyes, and makes for grander scale of battles. I definitely wouldn't enjoy Company of Heroes or Dawn of War as much if entire armies were clumped up in tight balls rather than the spread out wars they are now.
This is more of a game design thread than a "BW vs SC2" thread.
Like like like like LIKE! if units moved like this it would make the game twice as interesting, even if they then stepped up the splash damage increase it would make more exciting moments just like storms, mines, reaver, and other splash stuff in scbw where they had the potential to be game changing.
not to mention this would make micro so much more effective. hope blizzard looks into this.
A lot of people here are saying that having your units spread out like that is desirable as a player. That's definitely not true for protoss unless you're dodging AoE. Given forcefields, colossi, the 0 stalker DPS, protoss would have to be completely redesigned.
I think we should have the option to either have our units clumped (i.e. the standard move command) or have them spread (which you can do manually). If units move in the BW/WC3 fashion where they can't push each other around and are naturally spread out, it's basically just automatically spacing your units to mitigate AoE, which removes some of the micro aspect.
Besides the whole game having to be rebalanced, I feel like there's value in being able to pack your units in tightly together (which is advantageous in, say, marine vs. zergling) and being able to manually spread them (marine vs. baneling). If they re-implemented the pathing AI that keeps your units spread, that would actually remove some of the awesome splitting micro we see.
Basically, if you want your units spread out, spread them out yourself. It might take a lot of APM but take that a reason to improve your micro, not a reason to bitch about your units being all smooshed together just because that's how it was in BW.
I think to a less extreme extent than demonstrated in OP it could be very beneficial for both players and spectators. Right now spreading smaller groups of units just makes smaller balls (heh) that still often take the full blast of anything with splash.
If Blizzard takes this seriously, most probably we'll only see this implemented in HotS. Making a change in WoL will result in a large scale re-balancing of the game (spell AOE, splash, etc.).
I would love it, but it unfortunately will probably never happen as it would change the game so much
I mean there would be no point for banes in their current state, while I don't think other splash units wouldn't be affected as much, a few tweaks her and there would get it right... but banes would need to be almost redesigned I think.
Camera distance would probably also need to be adjusted to account for the larger space that units take up..
Personally I'm left drooling, as those pictures are very appealing, but I don't design SC2 and I'm sure there are other scenarios that this would affect greatly...
Dynamic movement/formation is almost always more fun to watch than deathballs. Unfortunately its too much of a big change to implement and it would make certain micro techniques such as marine splitting obsolete.
I dont think sc2 will last too long without some change like this. It's hard to watch compared to bw and it just looks silly. This change would be amazing, though I have doubts that blizzard would implement this. Of course some splash damage stuff would have to be adjusted but yes, this is definitely a ton better.
I dont think sc2 will last too long without some change like this. It's hard to watch compared to bw and it just looks silly. This change would be amazing, though I have doubts that blizzard would implement this. Of course some splash damage stuff would have to be adjusted but yes, this is definitely a ton better.
Until you watch Nada or Jinro defy tank lines with amazing marine micro, which in itself is exciting. Not many pros do it yet either, I think this is something that'll take time.
It just occurred to me too: God save us should Jaedong ever come over and micro against a colossus/tank/baneling/storm.
On May 17 2011 14:09 -miDnight- wrote: I think this would be a good change. Because right now
Terran ball= own by storm, fungle, baneling, tank, colocuss Zerg ball = own by storm, colocuss, tank Protoss ball= indestructible (EMP maybe)
but if change the way unite move, the whole balance of game need to be change. Baneling will be kinda useless in TvZ
maybe this is something can be implant in Heart of the swarm
Wow. So a zerg has never won in the history of the game, and a terran has never won over a protoss? because that's what you just said >,<. Quit whining. There's nothing like a zerg ball, it's either a spread out zerg or a stupid zerg.
I like it like it is tbh. The game would change way too drastically if such a change would be implemented, and I doubt they'll do it for hots. I recall age of empires 2.. There units do clump up as well, and I love that game. I don't mind it staying like it is.
It looks like a nice change but the entire game would have to be rebalanced for aoes to be useful and I dont see how units would change their clumping behaviour once they start attacking something. The units just like sticking together and lineing up S:
Hopefully an expansion will do something drastic like this though. Blizzards already gone to great lengths to stop air units patrol stacking maybe they will do the same for ground one day.
As usual I am completely taken aback by people who don't want a single stain mentioned on their SC2.
Unit Clumping is one of the major reasons this game will take forever to balance. In terms of E-Sports and the success of starcraft most of the entertainment factor comes from massive AOE damage.
But because units clump up in SC2, AOE is a constant complaint. Especially Tanks and Colossus.
If this was implemented it would make the game easier for players and spectators.
Balance wise I don't see how the negatives out weigh the positives.
The only unit that I feel would suffer from this is banelings vs marines. However, at least it would make zerg swarms more likely to reach a tankline without completely getting wiped out.
And it would kind of nerf colossus and forcefields.
But it would also make zealots and stalkers more effective units overall.
I guess I just don't get it.
Right now attempting to un-clump your army just looks tedious and ugly.
Clumping and deathballs are the single thing thing that will contribute most to killing SC2 as a spectator sport. If this change comes with HotS I will die of happiness (it won't).
Anyone who is against this idea doesn't know what there talking about. This is one of the biggest problems with zerg and why our units feel so MEH, AOE is just to strong coupled with how this game works mechanically. Those who say that we should have to micro and fight the balling effects dont understand how fast this game moves. As a zerg player I feel zerg would need nerfs after this change, Cracklings would become incredible again.
YES YES YES. It has been said before, but I think this would be SO MUCH BETTER. It would fix many of the problems I have with SC2. There would probably need to be some rebalancing of splash units though (but definitely still worth it).
it would change balance to much to implement now, but wouldve liked to see it in beta, cause now after nerf to tanks and storm, it would make AOE even worse
I certainly don't think this suggestion should be thrown out just because it might have a negative effect on one unit matchup (marine/baneling). There are numerous ways you can rebalance the game so that banelings don't get broken, and SC2 itself will end up benefiting a lot more in both aesthetics and gameplay because of it.
And the fact that not every single one of your ranged units can fire at a single time will actually VASTLY reward splitting up your army and attacking multiple places.
It obviously looks a lot better when the unit are automatically spread out a bit, when they move in a clump it simply looks silly and anti-climactic. Too bad Blizzard would never make such a drastic change, even if it made their game so much better
On May 17 2011 15:13 L3gendary wrote: This would make my dreams come true. Those pictures look so awesome. Has this actually been implemented or just set up that way for the ss?
It was a map the OP made. It would be interesting to see some of the old BW pros play around with maps that have this type of unit collision built in, since it can apparently be done with the editor.
This is something blizzard should definitely just try out on the PTR. Which confuses me, why aren't they abusing the PTR more. Such as throwing RIDICULOUS changes there and seeing if it messed up the game too much or what happens.
Isn't that the point of the PTR? Just a post release beta?
I just haven't had the time with finals, but I will soon write a ton of articles on this subject. I really feel like this is the fix that will give SC2 that special something BW has but SC2 lacks. TL should not rest till blizzard knows how bad we want this!
For anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, just remember 1) there would obviously be rebalancing (and it would be worth it, and 2) just try it. Remember how awesome BW battles felt? If not, go back and play BW and you will begin to want this too.
The only thing I see as a problem, is pros will probably be against this as it will throw tournaments off for a little. But so what!? It's a change that will vastly improve SC2.
On May 17 2011 15:34 Beef Noodles wrote: I just haven't had the time with finals, but I will soon write a ton of articles on this subject. I really feel like this is the fix that will give SC2 that special something BW has but SC2 lacks. TL should not rest till blizzard knows how bad we want this!
For anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, just remember 1) there would obviously be rebalancing (and it would be worth it, and 2) just try it. Remember how awesome BW battles felt? If not, go back and play BW and you will begin to want this too.
The only thing I see as a problem, is pros will probably be against this as it will throw tournaments off for a little. But so what!? It's a change that will vastly improve SC2.
The fact that it will throw pro players off is why I think a change like this is best suited for an expansion. Expansions will throw games off no matter what because it's gonna have new units and spells to change the metagame. HotS would be a perfect time to change up the pathing so that we can test it during the beta.
To all the people saying this will eliminate micro, try it out first!
In BW, small units like marines would still clump (just not as much). But, they would clump enough that it would still require split micro. It would also require unit control micro, because your entire army wouldn't be attacking at once. During a battle, you would constantly need to be bringing in more and more troops, and repositioning your front lines as the back ends of your army join the fray. It would definitely increase micro.
To all those who say it would ruin the balance, it wouldn't be *as bad* as you think. Tank lines would still be AMAZING, because now armies would be advancing in limbo lines, and tanks would continually kill the front units as they waltzed it. As it stands now, tank lines get 1 or 2 AMAZING volleys, but then the group of clumped units (say for example marines) arrives and has such high dps (thanks to clumping) that the entire siege line evaporates. Units like the infestor, collosus, and bling splash operates differently from the siege tank, so yes, they would receive a nerf from this change, but they can always be tweaked. But even looking at the baneling, it might not be as bad as we think. A pack of banelings wouldn't be melting to tank fire, and they wouldn't be melting to marine-clump dps. They would kill fewer marines per explosion, but they might actually hit more often (I will have to test this out more). Why would you not make the game so much better for the sake of a few more unit balance changes?
Either way, please at least try it in a UMS, and then say whether you like it or not.
To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
The only changes they would need are increases in damage & aoe on every aoe unit. It wouldn't require a complete redesign just a few stats, mostly reversions like the siege tank.
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
The reasons are outlined in the first post. I highly doubt it's only nostalgic BW fans that want this change, either.
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
Non-clumping units actually increases micro because it means that players will have to manage their ranged units more than they do now. When ranged units are spread out, it means that it'll be harder for all of them to get in range, meaning that players will have to properly position their units so that as many of them are firing as possible. Not only will this add more micro to ranged units, it will also help melee units become more viable since they won't instantly melt to ranged fire anymore.
Overall, this change helps the game aesthetically, and increases gameplay depth and micro. A win-win.
if they were to implement like spread formation that are in games like caesar and so on... then the gap at the pro scene would be even smaller... it takes a bit of micro to spread your marines... if there was a hotkey to spread them all out at once... that's just well... idk
you did mention something similar to what i was musing about:
what if you have a bunch of fast units pushing a slow unit somehow...
i know that you can technically push a warping archon around... it would be so cool to push ghosts that are nuking away from the spot lol... i doubt it would work though...they seem quite glued in place
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
Non-clumping units actually increases micro because it means that players will have to manage their ranged units more than they do now. When ranged units are spread out, it means that it'll be harder for all of them to get in range, meaning that players will have to properly position their units so that as many of them are firing as possible. Not only will this add more micro to ranged units, it will also help melee units become more viable since they won't instantly melt to ranged fire anymore.
Overall, this change helps the game aesthetically, and increases gameplay depth and micro. A win-win.
You sir win a gold star for having the same opinion as me.
We would all be better people for listening to you.
Gotta say, the pictures with the units spread out really make the game look better. I mean look at the Marines in the first picture. They're running but are so tightly packed together - there's about a foot between them. Nobody runs like that! You wouldn't see formations like that unless it was like the middle ages or something. Heck, you wouldn't even be able to realistically run in that kind of formation - one guy stops, the next fifty trip over him. I'm not saying everything in SC2 has to be "realistic" (LOL) but this is just common sense.
ROFL! There was a post similair to this not too long ago (can't find it) and it got bashed to the ground. Now the korean's come up with it everything seems all of a sudden way more logical and almost genius!
Anyways, I don't see why things wouold be more dynamic (explain please). Also, the splash dmg arguement is seems to be invalid if you use at lesat 1% brainpower. It would nerf ALL AoE units (tanks/colossi/ghost/HT/infestor/hellion/baneling) which would lead to an complete imbalance. Besides, why make thing smore easy for ppl by not having them to micro at all vs splash units? Can't u generally amove alot already in this game?
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
Non-clumping units actually increases micro because it means that players will have to manage their ranged units more than they do now. When ranged units are spread out, it means that it'll be harder for all of them to get in range, meaning that players will have to properly position their units so that as many of them are firing as possible. Not only will this add more micro to ranged units, it will also help melee units become more viable since they won't instantly melt to ranged fire anymore.
Overall, this change helps the game aesthetically, and increases gameplay depth and micro. A win-win.
The range micro seems to be a good point (at least against the argument that the game would lose micro) - thanks
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
Non-clumping units actually increases micro because it means that players will have to manage their ranged units more than they do now. When ranged units are spread out, it means that it'll be harder for all of them to get in range, meaning that players will have to properly position their units so that as many of them are firing as possible. Not only will this add more micro to ranged units, it will also help melee units become more viable since they won't instantly melt to ranged fire anymore.
Overall, this change helps the game aesthetically, and increases gameplay depth and micro. A win-win.
Serieously, ppl should use more brains . BW is not the same as SC2. SC2 has smartcasting and all ranged untis will just move in range of their target 0,1 second later than normal
Although I definitely agree that visually this looks way better than the retarded balls we have now, I don't understand why not having clumped units increases micro. When you A-move, your units are gonna get in range to fire regardless of where they are, they don't have path finding issues like in BW
I'd be happy with MBS being out, and massive universal AoE buffs. See how long the deathball mentality thrives when tanks kill 1/3rd of the ball per shot. =P
A bit of hyperbole there, of course...but only a bit. I don't understand, there seems to be a great number of people who complain about the skill ceiling in SC2 - how a player can't win based upon having superior mechanics at the highest levels, but many of those same people support unit AI which unclumps itself (anti-micro), and complain about strong AoE abilities (ex: emp).
On May 17 2011 16:07 IzieBoy wrote: if they were to implement like spread formation that are in games like caesar and so on... then the gap at the pro scene would be even smaller... it takes a bit of micro to spread your marines... if there was a hotkey to spread them all out at once... that's just well... idk
you did mention something similar to what i was musing about:
what if you have a bunch of fast units pushing a slow unit somehow...
i know that you can technically push a warping archon around... it would be so cool to push ghosts that are nuking away from the spot lol... i doubt it would work though...they seem quite glued in place
You're thinking about this in the completely wrong way.
Yes this change would make Unit X vs Baneling easier to micro.
However it would make practically all other engagements tougher to micro since it would make it more challenging to consolidate your army for maximum output.
This change would be good as I feel right now SC2 unit AI as well as the infinite control groups is one of the biggest issues the game has.
Trust me if BW players could move around with a deathball as large, smart and mobile as the ones we have in SC2 then they would be A-moving around the map as much as we do.
Also think this would be better for spectators as right now large battles are usually the least interesting ones.
On May 17 2011 15:58 havox_ wrote: To be honest: idont 100% understand why exactly the bw fans want this back... You wanna take away a huge part of the games micro cuz it looks silly?
Yes, i know that i overdo a bit, but: Still funny that everybody agrees but actually mentions completly different reasons - this could mean that a) people don't even agree why the clumping could be bad (then it should not be changed i guess) or b) it means that there are many different legit reasons - then it would be a good change Soooo... What are the real reasons for a change? (and no, that its tough to see units and that it doesnt look natural arent legit reasons imho)
Non-clumping units actually increases micro because it means that players will have to manage their ranged units more than they do now. When ranged units are spread out, it means that it'll be harder for all of them to get in range, meaning that players will have to properly position their units so that as many of them are firing as possible. Not only will this add more micro to ranged units, it will also help melee units become more viable since they won't instantly melt to ranged fire anymore.
Overall, this change helps the game aesthetically, and increases gameplay depth and micro. A win-win.
Serieously, ppl should use more brains . BW is not the same as SC2. SC2 has smartcasting and all ranged untis will just move in range of their target 0,1 second later than normal
There are actually two reasons why ranged units get weaker with less clumping. The first is that they won't all be in range all of the time. You say that units will just get in range quickly, but the same was true for BW (except dragoons of course). But the time it takes to get in range is pretty damn important and can make a difference, especially when it comes to sniping key units and harassing.
The second reason of course is that less clumping means it's easier for melee units to fight range units. Zerglings and zealots are basically worthless against marines because clumped marines in a decent amount just decimate melee. Greater surface area allows melee to attack more marines at once, which again, can make a difference.
Neither of these things really change in SC2. In fact, you can take these ideas and apply them to other RTSs as well, like WC3.
I never much cared for the blob-grouping function added in SC-II; it almost seems counter intuitive for a real-time strategy game and makes it that much harder to micro your units around. Don't misunderstand either by saying, "harder requires more skill; they just raised the skill ceiling". No they didn't. Had they opted for a unit formation option like in WC3 I would be inclined to agree with such a sentiment, but considering the bio-ball is a standard built-in function such an argument is rather moot.
Is there a way to accomplish this type of movement for general units using the magic box technique? I know it's not particularly practical to do it all the time but I'm just curious.
If you can scatter your units about using the standard 'patrol' technique or simply manually then blizzard could just add a 'move in current formation' button in order to simulate the effect. I know that's some pretty extreme hand-holding but it's more or less in line with what they've been doing so far (i.e. making a complicated technique into something anyone can do).
My main concern about this idea would be that it could over-complicate the interface to have a toggle over formation/not-formation movement.
An easier way to make all battles take longer is to decrease all attack speeds by 10%. This keeps everything similarly balanced except melee which become a bit stronger. Throwing out the games pathfinding engine is an extremely dumb idea, and will never happen. Instead, units could be made to hold relative position to each other on a single move command, like flying units do, instead of a complete overhaul. Still, it seems a pointless change with far reaching effects that aren't worth the trouble.
Excellent idea! Although as a zerg player i can see the other two races complaining about how if this change is implemented zerg will be over powered and overwhelm siege lings and the (spreed out) death ball. The only way ZvZ will be affected is with banelings becoming less affective and getting concaves easier.
While this would be brilliant to implement i don't think it will happen (though id love to be proved wrong). It will most of the players and making watching games much more enjoyable but Blizzard tend to look at the top level of play before anything else when it comes to changing something in the game
Everyone will agree that the second picture looks WAY better with the units spread out. All those balls just look so tiny and clumped up. And it's so hard to tell what units are there.
However, SC2 is currently designed around the tight ball-thing.
Imagine 100 zerglings running around spread out. I can't imagine what a runby into someones base would be liek.
ofc we would need a buff for the splash units, because for example marines are split by default, and somehow i feel the zergling would have too much surface area ( you could run them between the units, which would make nearly any composition apart from pure zealot melt)
This is something I've thought about too since rewatching the original Zerg reveal trailer
Watch this part at 1 minute 6 seconds.
Doesn't that battle look so much more epic than most of the battles in SC2? Brood war felt so much larger in scope. That's one of the most disappointing parts of the single player too, everything seems shrunk down and squeezed together to a miniature scale.
:edit: To be fair there's probably 300 food worth of zerg in that clip. The game would be very very different if units did not naturally clump together.
Doesn't that battle look so much more epic than most of the battles in SC2? Brood war felt so much larger in scope. That's one of the most disappointing parts of the single player too, everything seems shrunk down and squeezed together to a miniature scale.
:edit: To be fair there's probably 300 food worth of zerg in that clip. The game would be very very different if units did not naturally clump together.
That video hit the nail on the head. It really sums up why SC2 is just not as big a visual treat as it seemed to be back when we were getting sneak peaks.
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement.
There's nothing more "dynamic" with this than with SC2's standard pathing. Neither is more "dynamic" than the other.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
No, having them spread out makes your army look bigger than it actually is. Your army is the size of their collective collision area. No more, no less.
Everything else here is a value judgement.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
You seem to be sabotaging your own argument. You say that the lowest graphics setting makes it easier to see the different between units. But the lowest graphics settings does not change the units pathing. So "clumped" units would be perfectly distinguishable if the higher graphics settings didn't do things that made it hard to tell units apart. Therefore, you're saying that you don't need to change pathfinding; you need to get Blizzard to adjust the higher graphics levels to make units more visually distinct.
This is something blizzard should definitely just try out on the PTR.
You, like many other people, seem to be under the impression that "clumping" is just something that can be taken away. That there's some line of code that they can just excise and presto, units don't "clump" anymore.
What you call "clumping" is not something that was deliberately engineered into the game. It is no more deliberately engineered than Muta-stacking or Patrol-micro were deliberately engineered into SC1. "Clumping" is the ultimate and inevitable result of having better pathing.
Units go in the most direct path to the designated target. If you tell a large group of units that are relatively close where to go, then they will all go together. As a single group. Because that's the fastest, most optimal way for all of those units to do what the player told them to do.
What people are asking for is nothing less than for Blizzard to break pathfinding. You want to take the excellent pathfinding in SC2 and break it so that units do not take the optimal path.
Breaking pathfinding would have far reaching implications. Units will, by "design", not go where you tell them to. This could lead to any number of unpleasant emergent properties for unit pathing. Maybe Stalkers start acting like Dragoons from SC1, which is not even remotely like a good thing. If you try to get two Thors down a ramp, will they get stuck on each other and neither be able to progress?
What you are asking for is not a simple or trivial thing. It is not something you just do. It fundamentally changes everything. Not just unit balance, but everything.
I personally don't know if this would make SC2's overall gameplay better or not. But I do know this: if it is possible for pathfinding to be too good, if it is possible for the game to do what the player told it to too well, then StarCraft-style RTS gameplay is, as a whole, fundamentally broken. If the only way to make good gameplay is to break the interface, then something is dreadfully wrong with StarCraft-style RTS games.
Doesn't that battle look so much more epic than most of the battles in SC2? Brood war felt so much larger in scope. That's one of the most disappointing parts of the single player too, everything seems shrunk down and squeezed together to a miniature scale.
:edit: To be fair there's probably 300 food worth of zerg in that clip. The game would be very very different if units did not naturally clump together.
yup that was what I was expecting months before sc2 came up and I wanted to play the zerg so badly to have a huge swarm like that!
I think SC2 will evolve so much that any pro players will splitt is army so good and fast that the blob feel we see now wont happen that much.
It's stupid to want to dumb the game so that it feels "better" imo, the players have to do it themselves.. we all have seen the blob versus a better concave and the better position wins almost all of the time especially versus stron AoE units like colossus, tanks, EMP, storms and fungal..
it will be a matter of spread or die..
If the marines behave like that and zerglings how could a tank ever be efective?
How could anyone stop a muta ball for instance? if thors can't do it nothing will..and you always have the matchboxing that negates the AoE of thors but it's a skill not all can do or atleast do it all the time..
I feel the blob thing is because players are being lazy in their army disposition imo and i feel a crap load of bug type aliens (zerg) should move like that.. everytime i see 30 roaches move in a ball i think it's right.. it's a insect type of thing.. and marines beside the tanks is also right
The only problem is the protoss that mass gateway units beside the colossus but fungal will negate it a bit and also the EMP and ghost buff because protoss players simply can't have them like that or they will loose and that's it!
another point in favour of "Dynamic" movements is the increase in volitility in the game. let me explain, less clumping means more seige damage and area to compensate for there being less units. What this does is produce micro situations where having your units spread out is worth a lot more (units can still clump with dynamic movement) as getting a bad tank shot will severely hurt your troops.
yes, u found the reason, thats one thing i alsways hated, next to the "why my ultras cant do dmg ohh there are 15 lings in front of them blocking everything" it would make alot of things more interesting. like a very smal unseen thing between 2 units that they cant get that close togeather.
As a spectator, anything that helps counteract clumping ball Vs. ball commentator doesn't even know wtf is going on gaming end battles is a good thing.
You, like many other people, seem to be under the impression that "clumping" is just something that can be taken away. That there's some line of code that they can just excise and presto, units don't "clump" anymore.
Actually, there is. If you increase the collision radius of units, they won't clump up so much. Problem solved?
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement.
There's nothing more "dynamic" with this than with SC2's standard pathing. Neither is more "dynamic" than the other.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
No, having them spread out makes your army look bigger than it actually is. Your army is the size of their collective collision area. No more, no less.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
You seem to be sabotaging your own argument. You say that the lowest graphics setting makes it easier to see the different between units. But the lowest graphics settings does not change the units pathing. So "clumped" units would be perfectly distinguishable if the higher graphics settings didn't do things that made it hard to tell units apart. Therefore, you're saying that you don't need to change pathfinding; you need to get Blizzard to adjust the higher graphics levels to make units more visually distinct.
This is something blizzard should definitely just try out on the PTR.
You, like many other people, seem to be under the impression that "clumping" is just something that can be taken away. That there's some line of code that they can just excise and presto, units don't "clump" anymore.
What you call "clumping" is not something that was deliberately engineered into the game. It is no more deliberately engineered than Muta-stacking or Patrol-micro were deliberately engineered into SC1. "Clumping" is the ultimate and inevitable result of having better pathing.
Units go in the most direct path to the designated target. If you tell a large group of units that are relatively close where to go, then they will all go together. As a single group. Because that's the fastest, most optimal way for all of those units to do what the player told them to do.
What people are asking for is nothing less than for Blizzard to break pathfinding. You want to take the excellent pathfinding in SC2 and break it so that units do not take the optimal path.
Breaking pathfinding would have far reaching implications. Units will, by "design", not go where you tell them to. This could lead to any number of unpleasant emergent properties for unit pathing. Maybe Stalkers start acting like Dragoons from SC1, which is not even remotely like a good thing. If you try to get two Thors down a ramp, will they get stuck on each other and neither be able to progress?
What you are asking for is not a simple or trivial thing. It is not something you just do. It fundamentally changes everything. Not just unit balance, but everything.
I personally don't know if this would make SC2's overall gameplay better or not. But I do know this: if it is possible for pathfinding to be too good, if it is possible for the game to do what the player told it to too well, then StarCraft-style RTS gameplay is, as a whole, fundamentally broken. If the only way to make good gameplay is to break the interface, then something is dreadfully wrong with StarCraft-style RTS games.
Agreed.And it will never happen.You can be sure of that.
really really hope that blizzard is aware of this problem, which in my opinion could be easily changed, of course it woule require a lot (!) of testing, and i dont feel they would consider such a huge hange in the most basic game dynamics... is there a official statement which addresses this issue?
I'm strongly opposed to this and I long for the micro battles of bw. One of the few things in sc2 that reminds me of the micro I had to do in bw is splitting my marines against banelings. My army is moments from victory and moments from defeat at all times in TvZ and micro makes up for that. You add a feature like this and you change the entire game in what I believe would be the wrong direction for an exciting spectator game.
I think there should be an option that you click, much like WC3.
For those who think it would remove the need of micro from the game, simply refer to WC3. That entire game revolved around micro, so I doubt that would be much of an issue.
Both clumping and spreading should be options. One is not better than the other, one does not prove you more skillful than the other. Both have their advantages, why am I forced to clump?
Hey verry interesting point and the clumping of units when moving with them is quiet annoying The trick you can do with the muta magic box you should be able to do with anny random combination of units There should be a command to let the unit group you selected keep its current formation when moving and returning to its current formation after going through a choke for example this would include "slowing down" faster units so that they keep the same formation with the slower units... when a moving all the units would move till in range of fire of course in current game its near impossible to let your units keep a certain formation when moving due to differences in speed/seize/passing of chokes and bumping into eachoter, unless you like a grandmaster player using formations for your army is something that every player should be able to do imo i do remember some verry old rts games did have this option to keep formation while moving
I would cry tears of joy if they actually implemented this change.
From the start it was clear that the SC2 pathing system had a really bad effect ony things like splash (becomming overly powerful) and concentrated fire (protoss/m&m&m ball). I never understood why they did it like that. I always thought about increasing collision size... but this is way better. (also increasing colision size totally nullifies attack power of zerglings and other melee units)
I don't think it's a good idea. I think clumping actually adds a lot to unit positioning pre-battle and unit microing during battle. It's actually a skill right now to be able to spread your units in a good fashion or to split them to mitigate splash damage.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
You gotta remember that tanks didn't have smart fire in BW, clumping or no clumping tanks in SC2 would still be very strong as they rarely overkill, thats why they do less damage in SC2.... smart fire with 70 damage per shot would be silly.
I dont think it should be changed because it would change the entire game. Every splash effect would have to be changed and such, it would completely change the balance of the game.
People are already complaining when they make a fairly minor change like the warpgate research time. If you change something like this people would have to start all over again with a lot of builds etc.
This, (if implemented) would be the best thing to ever happen to sc2 On a side note: I'm like the biggest BW fan ever and what really kills sc2 for me is this amongst other things and this would also bring about some balance changes to banelings since they'd be pretty ineffective towards a much easier Terran-spreading tactic.
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
dont you realize when people get better at microing their armies will look more ideal regardless of the ai pathing? :p i think the end result would be better if units knew other friendly units were in the way. they wouldnt spread out like in bw or wc3 tho because the pathing is still going to be alot better and it wouldnt look this spread out on move command anyway
remember in bw it actually required an extremely amount of skill just to keep your mariens together while pushing towards the zerg because if they were just moving by themselves there would be too many lone marines getting picked off by mutalisks. so i think the argument to say the current sc2 ai pathing of units not blocking encourages more micro is wrong.
either way you make the ai it would require alot of skill to make the units move in the way you want but i think units moving to dodge friendly units in the way simply makes more sense and would give opportunity for more micro. for example storm and fungal micro is alot harder for the one spreading his units than the one casting the spells. this would acatually balance the skill requirements a little
It even looks better frome a visual perspective. SC2 units completely lack personal space, and it looks dumb and simplistic.
I never knew why but I always thought SC1 unit movement looked more natural and organic than SC2's efficiently packed unit balls. Now I understand why.
The more I understand about SC2's design, the more underwhelmed I am. Let's pray Blizzard is watching to this thread. Lets make the post count skyrocket.... post you muppets, post!
If this gets changed it would lower DPS of so called "deathballs" since fewer units are in attackrange and it would help melee units to fight vs ranged. right now 50 Supply Marauder&marines/stalkers put out so much dps while giving melees very little attack surface.
Even if it look freaking col and more ntural, it will change the balance of the game so much. Melee and splash damage units would have to be tweak a lot to make this work. Even units like marines would be so hard to deal with with a natural spreading.
It honestly comes down to how much is desired to be automated and how much should rely on skill. It would, for instance, make the game immensely easier if queued units didn't cost anything before they were actually built. However, this would surely assist in ruining the game by taking away some of the skill levels needed to compete at higher levels. This is the same thing. Yes, it would decrease the power of splash attacks. But is that to be desired? In my honest opinnion; no. Micro is a central element of sc2 and this would basically destroy the currrent game, making it way, way, way too easy.
People are vaguely saying 'balance' is an issue. From what i see, proponents of this change do not quite understand the ramifications of just how many balance issues this would cause. I will list just some very basic ones, this is NOT a complete list.
1. Terran Mass Marine strategy in TvZ. - Zerg 'counter' Banelings. - Terran 'response' Micro marines to minimize the splash.
-- Result: Zerg has no change, and terran's natural unit position from this would always be good enough to COMPELTELY negate this baneling strategy. However, with marines being spread, the zerg 'counter' to this early game all-in would be mass ling (yes i know that roaches are also possible, but just for illustration of a point). Mass ling will ALWAYS get entire surrounds on INDIVIDUAL marines, picking them off much more efficiently when they cant ball. Roaches would have no change, but lings getting a full surround frankly eat marines, as they will ALWAYS be spread with enough room for lings to get in. Would this be a 'balanced' counter / MU? I have no idea. But this also would allow zerg to forgo all gas, getting an insane economy (ultra fast 3rd, for example) and crush terran lategame. Should this happen? Would this be balanced? How does Terran stop muta/ling/infestor when siege tanks only hit 2-3 lings per shot? That's for you to decide. But please just think how this would change THE ENTIRE MATCHUP, with one simple change.(Note-- This is just one example. I do NOT know if it would work out this way, which is exactly my point, that the entire game would be altered by this.)
That is the basic template on what you should be looking at with something like this. Here are some other just very basic ideas (I will nto go into depth, that is for you to decide)
- PvZ. Lings insta full surrounding, in every nook in cranny of a death ball. Colo splash will be ultra negated. Can Forcefield be enough? Will ling dmg/hp again have to be balanced? Will HT become standard? Mass lot instead?
- PvT-- HT and Colo, with such little splash possible, are they viable, can forcefield still make them viable? Yes i know mass gateway / upgrades does work, but is completely cutting out 2 units from a race something that should be considered?
Again, these are just BASIC FIRST impressions from what this would cause. Please do not turn this topic into a debate about what are the potential counters or what-not, just trying to get people to think about more than "Oh wow this will instantly make starcraft better as it will be better in this one facet!!". SC2 is still very young, remember all the original complaints that it required less skill, as the smaller control groups? Now people complaining it would require too much skill to micro smaller unit groups. Maybe integrate more control groups....? The entire hotkey setup is customizable....
Lastly, I've seen a lot of people adding in 'collission', which will be 'hit boxes'. This would case the game to be glitchy, Period. This would detract from the smooth movements into glitchy animations. Also, would you only have this be for friendly units? Would enemy units be able to pass between as 'normal' in the current game? Would the coding be even possible, or worthwhile? Personally, This will never happen. MAYBE the unit movement, but not collission detection... Please think of how that would detract from the flow of the game.
marines are actually pretty weak against melee units if you spread them, while they are good vs splash then, well if bothcomes together no chance for the poor marines. (which is most of thetimes the case, luckily this seems to be unknown by many so you can get lucky and outmanouver one of the things.)
Anyway yeah the bw mechanics where so nice and worked perfectly. It is really awesome that units formed a line running in one by one. Well until people began to use this mechanic to attack in lines they formed before the engagement, which made armys 100 times more efficient. In sc2 its only 10 times more effecient, which actual so you can attack on 2 sides. without failing a 30 supply side attack against 10 supply of the opponent who will maybe lose one unit in this attack if you don't micro properly.
And i guess everyone saw a 200 supply army run into this wide open ground with 3 entrances for both players and the opponents army comes from every side and there is nothing that will save those 200 clumped supply.
The movement mechanic is fine, they don't force you to run in a clump, like you aren't forced to run in a line in bw (though it forces you into this line)
I actually don't mind the bw mechanics because they would have to nerf zealots lings into the ground and buff aoe units. So since terran is my favorite race i wouldn't mind autoforming lines, weaker melee units and 70 damage vs all siege tanks. oh right and while we are at it 12 max unit selection so i can easily spread my marines, that won't care if meele units can nibble easier on them.
You should play bw again and control your units like you do in sc2 and see how well they can do. And then you can use your units in sc2 like you would use them in bw to actually be worth anything.
good unit control is important if you give it up because the mechanics are to comfy then its not the games fault, that you lose.
The game is well rounded to be able to fight this clumping easily, has mechanics to avoid clumping, forces more then one unit type plays. And is superior to bw if you just a click, while it is still super weak to someone that uses army positioning.
The only unit really abusing this clumping is the colossi. Ranged units form a line when attacking, perfect damage output for the colossi. Melee units form a line when attacking clumped ranged units, perfect damage for the colossi. Well and ther are those force fields as well. So the mechanics really work for the colossi. (and tanks attack the neareast/weakest unit and deal friendly fire, now thats an ai fail) (PS: i don't think the colossi is unfair, then crackling baneling would be as unfair hehe. But it would be better if they wouldn't work so perfectly with the ai, but that would mean the aoe would need a change)
But thats nothing new a bw toss tryed to stay as compact as possible as well, so their damage output was the most effectiv.
All of the 2010 join date posters are rebelling against BW mechanics. Have you guys even played the game? Controlling spread out units takes far more micro than controlling stacked units. Fixing the unit collision won't help, because you'd ideally want to be able to manually unsplit your units when you need less perimeter on your range units against melee units.
@Viperx
You can't throw out ridiculous comments and then say:
Please do not turn this topic into a debate about what are the potential counters or what-not
That just makes you look like an asshole.
1. Ideally you'd still be able to micro your marines to clump together against a cliff or something. You'll even be able to get marauders to block the now scary lings.
2. Bio will be severely nerfed. The reason it's so good right now is because of how good it clumps up. Terrans will be forced to mech in TvP, like the good old days.
3. Solution to PvZ: make zealots clump. Wall of zealots is cost effective against lings. Terran metal sucks against clumped charge zealots anyway so no change there. Buff to storm is obvious. Colossi are the worst units and need a nerf. Sorry protoss, no more 1a.
Balance complaints about non-stacked units aren't that serious. Game would be fairly easy to balance around non-stacked units since we already have an idea of how balance should work. If storm, tanks, emp, ultralisks and fg are significantly radius-buffed then this game will take far more micro than it does now. Besides, BroodWar is balanced. Maybe you should play it sometime?
On May 17 2011 23:08 serge wrote: All of the 2010 join date posters are rebelling against BW mechanics. Have you guys even played the game? Controlling spread out units takes far more micro than controlling stacked units. Fixing the unit collision won't help, because you'd ideally want to be able to manually unsplit your units when you need less perimeter on your range units against melee units.
Guess what: the game we are playing is SC2, so you're actually rebelling against SC2 mechanics. Not the other way around.
Yes I have played BW, but I am against this change simply because it would change absolutely everything about the game balance. The metagame would reset, every unit would most likely need some rebalancing. It's a pipe dream for those who want SC2 to become BW 2.0, but I'd rather see SC2 improve by its own merits.
Doesn't that battle look so much more epic than most of the battles in SC2? Brood war felt so much larger in scope. That's one of the most disappointing parts of the single player too, everything seems shrunk down and squeezed together to a miniature scale.
:edit: To be fair there's probably 300 food worth of zerg in that clip. The game would be very very different if units did not naturally clump together.
What's funny about that video is that you can tell that even Blizzard realized that clumped up units don't look very exciting, because every segment of the video that tries to portray the swarmy feel of the zerg always has the units spread out.
In fact, this is pretty true for Blizzard's advertisement campaign for SC2 as well. Go look at any of your old magazines or internet articles before SC2 came out. You'll rarely see a screenshot of a clumped up army, instead the units will always be positioned so that they look big and imposing (i.e spread out). It's actually quite surprising when you look back on it.
Doesn't that battle look so much more epic than most of the battles in SC2? Brood war felt so much larger in scope. That's one of the most disappointing parts of the single player too, everything seems shrunk down and squeezed together to a miniature scale.
:edit: To be fair there's probably 300 food worth of zerg in that clip. The game would be very very different if units did not naturally clump together.
Holy pumpkins, you're right! That looks SO much better than how SC2 actually looks now. No contest. Sure, some fairly serious balance questions would have to be addressed, but that's what the PTR is for. This would make the game much more interesting and visually appealing for players and spectators alike. Especially spectators who are new to the game, since it's not just that large armies would be more impressive, it's that you could actually see what's going on. I think SC2 suffers heavily from the "hey, a blob over there. blob, move towards that blob! now both blobs disappear" nature of big engagements... (Edit: Also, I did a double take when the lurker showed up in that video, I had forgotten that was going to be included)
On May 17 2011 23:08 serge wrote: All of the 2010 join date posters are rebelling against BW mechanics. Have you guys even played the game? Controlling spread out units takes far more micro than controlling stacked units. Fixing the unit collision won't help, because you'd ideally want to be able to manually unsplit your units when you need less perimeter on your range units against melee units.
Guess what: the game we are playing is SC2, so you're actually rebelling against SC2 mechanics. Not the other way around.
Yes I have played BW, but I am against this change simply because it would change absolutely everything about the game balance. The metagame would reset, every unit would most likely need some rebalancing. It's a pipe dream for those who want SC2 to become BW 2.0, but I'd rather see SC2 improve by its own merits.
The thing is that the "perfect unit movement" is the reason why there are many balance problems. The tight death balls of super efficient units (Colossi supported by Gateway units is the best example, but MM works as well) simply require the game to be perfectly balanced. The imperfect BW movement only gave you that tight concentrations of dps if you microed your units correctly and because of this the units didnt need to be as balanced as in SC2.
An easy example are all the splash damage attacks like Siege Tanks or Psi Storm. They could easily do more damage in BW because the movement AI didnt give you those tightly packed balls which meant 2-3 Tank shots from BW Siege Tanks could annihilate a bunch of 40 SC2 Zealots / Roaches. Zealots never clumped up that much in BW ... and Dragoons? Forget it! Thus in SC2 the Siege Tank and Psi Storm HAD TO be nerfed ...
tl;dr perfect movement AI requires perfect unit balance imperfect movement AI can live with a not so perfect unit balance
yes, this is exactly what i feel like is the biggest problem in sc2. this 'magically clump up' really hurt the game in many aspects, especially, allow me to be biased here, the zerg race. since zerg units are so fragile plus with the 'smart fire AI' of siege, zerg units die too quick and we can never get pass siege line with efficient army compo(blords is so late game).
solution? give this dynamic movement back if you wanna give smart fire AI. or the other way around.
I've fought about it before, long time ago, and realized this was a big issue. However, I just can't imagin Blizzard making such a huge change (although a great one, I would especially appreciate long (bw-like) battles). A change like that would be massive, imo.
They could make it in hots but that's also unlikely as it would change the core feeling of the game. Plus you have to consider it would take some work. Blizzard won't do more work than they have to. They know people will keep playing and even if they thought people would like the change, it's optional really.
So to wrap up my thought: It's a great idea but it won't happen in sc2.
It would be great if they could do something about unit radius or unit pathing like it is shown in the first post, in the upcoming Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void expansions.
It would probably need to be accompanied by some tweaking of stats, though. AOE would be nerfed, for one thing.
Agreed 100 percent... Starcraft 2: Clusterfuck... Unit spacing would look more realistic, play more exciting, and lead to longer battles. Higher damage aoe spells leave the potential for more damage but can also be microed against. All these people talking about marine splitting micro vs banelings... lol. How about one other unit interaction in the game?
I've bitched and moaned about this and the high ground mechanics since beta, and it's one of the main reasons I get sick and tired of SC2 from time to time. Nothing makes me more annoyed than trying to split MM perfectly against things like infestors, only to have everything clump back together when you take three steps forward. Not to mention the stupid deathballs, and how much harder it is to spectate. With dynamic movement, we could perhaps actually see maps properly split in half with many small skirmishes, instead of two blobs chasing and denying eachother movement. At best, you get some tiny drops some other place on the map, but more than that and you decrease the firepower of your almighty blob. They should try it out on the PTR, just see how it works. Nothing lost by trying, eh?
yep this looks awesome. but I think blizzard shouldn't patch this. let the pros learn how to spread/ control the army better. splitting the army into lines instead of balls is for their benefit anyway, getting bigger concave and such.
imo, one of the reason scbw was not a cluster hell is because of the 12 unit per control issues. now that we have pretty much unlimited unit# per control, it becomes cluster hell.
there is no reason for anyone not to put 12 units per control though because you can still do that.
I never throught about it , but now it makes sence. I would agree with this change, or at least some way to make it possible, like group option split or unite, etc. Thx for the translation !
I am honestly losing interest in this game because everything just dies in seconds. The one big engagement that took 15 minutes to get to for maybe 20 seconds of fighting is really lame. I've stopped paying for GSL seasons too (have bought every season up until now). I really tried getting into this game but the 15 minute preperation for 20 seconds of action, which usually is just everything dying to aoe, gets boring really quickly. I find myself logging off after 3-4 ladder games due to boredom. Yes you can debate harassment but these aren't real fronts where you're fighting; you're just trying to slow down their massing so you have a bigger army.
Didn't WC3 have the option to set up certain formations?
I thought you had an option of at least 3 kinds of formations on the left side around the minimap to choose from.
So you could choose to have your units clump, or spread out or even get in rank and files as they moved.
Maybe it wasn't WC3 but I swear I've seen this somewhere. I think it would add the versatility of being able to choose what unit formation you want. Sometimes clumping is a good thing.....like if you're harrassing with mutas and trying to find just the right spot in a mineral line where you don't take turret fire. But then you could change that groups formation is you're going to engage thors.
On May 18 2011 00:44 Thorxes wrote: Didn't WC3 have the option to set up certain formations?
I thought you had an option of at least 3 kinds of formations on the left side around the minimap to choose from.
So you could choose to have your units clump, or spread out or even get in rank and files as they moved.
Maybe it wasn't WC3 but I swear I've seen this somewhere. I think it would add the versatility of being able to choose what unit formation you want. Sometimes clumping is a good thing.....like if you're harrassing with mutas and trying to find just the right spot in a mineral line where you don't take turret fire. But then you could change that groups formation is you're going to engage thors.
WC3 had this feature and it was to first to be turned off by every player. Also there was only one formation iirc. Reason why it sucked: to maintain formation, everything moves as slow as the slowest unit to maintain the formation. Needs a change or no one would ever use it in sc2 anway.
I've thought about this quite a bit, as it isn't realistic to have them all clump up while moving (though while standing still that makes some sense.) It would be realistic if they all try to have a bubble of space around them, increasingly large at faster speeds, just as is natural in real life. Not sure if it would mess with the players too much or be too unpredictable.
At any rate, that was my idea for RTS pathing now that the old spreading effect isn't still in play.
I find it kind of amusing that the same people who complain about SC2's skill cap, now want to remove micro from the game by automatically giving you a near optimum formation.
On May 18 2011 00:43 Razith wrote: I am honestly losing interest in this game because everything just dies in seconds. The one big engagement that took 15 minutes to get to for maybe 20 seconds of fighting is really lame. I've stopped paying for GSL seasons too (have bought every season up until now). I really tried getting into this game but the 15 minute preperation for 20 seconds of action, which usually is just everything dying to aoe, gets boring really quickly. I find myself logging off after 3-4 ladder games due to boredom. Yes you can debate harassment but these aren't real fronts where you're fighting; you're just trying to slow down their massing so you have a bigger army.
The pathfinding and unit clumping has had so many secondary effects it's not even funny.
a) Ranged unit "group" DPS becomes ridiculous when they can pack together so tightly. There's a word I'm looking for here, and it rhymes with "arine."
b) AOE becomes too powerful. Look how every AOE ability in the game has been nerfed into the ground.
c) Massive battles are messy, chaotic, inelegant, and difficult to follow. Units die so fast you can't tell what's going on. The "dance" of the two armies is muted, and attack move is dominant.
d) The power of the One Big Army is so great that it almost never pays to split up your force. Hence both players each have their huge Death Ball and spend the game maneuvering it around. Oh, how I wish for a game where there was an advantage to strategically placing units all over the map.
e) There is no room for units to move to the right place. Ultras always get stuck behind lings, immortals never get to the front to tank seige shots, and archons just spin in circles and die.
On May 18 2011 00:44 Thorxes wrote: Didn't WC3 have the option to set up certain formations?
I thought you had an option of at least 3 kinds of formations on the left side around the minimap to choose from.
So you could choose to have your units clump, or spread out or even get in rank and files as they moved.
Maybe it wasn't WC3 but I swear I've seen this somewhere. I think it would add the versatility of being able to choose what unit formation you want. Sometimes clumping is a good thing.....like if you're harrassing with mutas and trying to find just the right spot in a mineral line where you don't take turret fire. But then you could change that groups formation is you're going to engage thors.
WC3 had this feature and it was to first to be turned off by every player. Also there was only one formation iirc. Reason why it sucked: to maintain formation, everything moves as slow as the slowest unit to maintain the formation. Needs a change or no one would ever use it in sc2 anway.
Wouldn't you sometimes want units to move at the same speed as the slowest unit? If you don't, then set up a separate control group, which people do now anyways. So your infestors wont run up ahead of your army....which should be a little better with the recent patch. Your stalkers won't go to the front of your army. But if you wanted your lings to run up or around somewhere to flank....you jsut set them up in thier own control group adn they can move freely.
Also, just because if may have not worked well in WC3, it doesn't mean that they can't fix it and make it better. That's the whole point of the discussion anyways....to make the game better. You can always look back at old tools/functions and improve them for use in other areas.
It seems like it's definitely worth trying out, and a lot of people seem excited about this kind of idea. I think it should be looked into and tested at least. At the very least, maybe a confirmation from Blizzard that they're aware of the communities idea and that they'll look into it.
I don't mind if they come back and say...."yes, we considered that, but have found the following X issues and have decided not to do that." I just hate when such a great idea is thrown out there, and no acknowledgement is ever sent back.
Kind of like asking a girl out....and instead of her saying no....she just sits there and looks at you...I'd rather her just say No so I can go on about my day.
Funny enough, this change would actually make movement more realistic. Clumping is unrealistic and it's funny that Blizz would introduce something like that in SC2 when it goes against the trend of videogames currently where they try for more realistic movement.
That said, the rebalancing that would be needed means this can wait until HOTS. Blizzard is going to have to rebalance the entire game anyway to accommodate the 1-2 additional units and what other additional spells/abilities they add.
This is how sc2 is meant to be played when you get to the late game.Lots of fast actions with easy macro for lots of battles. When both players can macro it makes good games most of the time.
On May 18 2011 01:02 Yaotzin wrote: I find it kind of amusing that the same people who complain about SC2's skill cap, now want to remove micro from the game by automatically giving you a near optimum formation.
How so? Keep in mind that a change like this would require an AoE buff, so unit relationships when it comes to AoE spells would be the same.
What a change like this will do is actually add micro when it comes to ranged units. The current SC2 pathing automatically keeps ranged units in the ideal position (small surface area), which makes them far more devastating against melee units than they ever were in SC2. Implementing more spread out units means that melee units can actually stand a good chance against ranged units if they are ever caught out of position.
It will also add more micro to range vs. range battles because more spread out units means that players will have to pay more attention to position their units in a concave. So a change like this actually adds micro, not less.
One of the con of this would be no more marine micro But i agree that it would be a big plus for the game, you could make the aoe bigger so you would still have to micro your marines
People are saying it isnt realisitic that units are clumped up well moving... well there arent to many realisitic aspects of SC2...
You all want to game to be harder and more dynamic and require that extra little something at the highest level... which we have. Unit control ie splitting, spreading etc etc is an important part of the game... a bad player who doesnt split his marines when infestors or banelings are out will lose... nuff said. Now with this proposed fix no splitting is required LOL my units move spread out... what would be the point in that ? Are we trying to make the game easier ?
Is it possible to make a custom map where units move like this ( and where you can play normal 1v1 ofc ) to test that. I'd love to try that, because i never really liked the armys moving in 1 big ball.
On May 18 2011 01:27 EZmark wrote: Are you guys even reading what you are writing...
People are saying it isnt realisitic that units are clumped up well moving... well there arent to many realisitic aspects of SC2...
You all want to game to be harder and more dynamic and require that extra little something at the highest level... which we have. Unit control ie splitting, spreading etc etc is an important part of the game... a bad player who doesnt split his marines when infestors or banelings are out will lose... nuff said. Now with this proposed fix no splitting is required LOL my units move spread out... what would be the point in that ? Are we trying to make the game easier ?
No, the point is that this could facilitate the game changing towards more spread out forms of combat, and less of the 'two armies clashing into each other, deciding the game in three seconds' which rots down the spectator experience and occurs extremely frequently even at the highest levels of play.
Huge armies clashing into each other is of course exciting, but it becomes boring when every unit is clumped together and the fight is incredibly short -- giving the players no chance but to GG if their army is not the remaining one. The unit clumping is one reason there are many games that are just one sided and one-dimensional.
it would certainly look much better, but the clumping also requires intense micro, because you always have to split up your units to avoid splash damage. Look at the pro players in GSL, they split up their units beatifully. E.g: Marines vs Siege Tanks, anything vs. Fungal Growth or Psistorm, managing your colossi not to take splash from enemy colossi etc. etc.
But not-clumped units look much better, and of course some things get easier due to clumping up. Zerglings become much stronger when the units are more spread out, or melee units in general.
Wow, I mean it was always in my mind, but seeing that change is crazy. The advantages are so obvious, that I cant believe it isnt like that in the game. Im very sad, cuz I believe no matter what... Blizzard wouldnt implement that.
Mi mind is blown... SC2's more "efficient" pathing has a huge distortion on the game and I never suspected it. Can anyone make a custom map where we can see this working for ourselves?
On May 18 2011 01:27 EZmark wrote: Are you guys even reading what you are writing...
People are saying it isnt realisitic that units are clumped up well moving... well there arent to many realisitic aspects of SC2...
You all want to game to be harder and more dynamic and require that extra little something at the highest level... which we have. Unit control ie splitting, spreading etc etc is an important part of the game... a bad player who doesnt split his marines when infestors or banelings are out will lose... nuff said. Now with this proposed fix no splitting is required LOL my units move spread out... what would be the point in that ? Are we trying to make the game easier ?
With split units flanking and positioning would be much much more important, as well as actually having some thought behind where you focus your AOE. With clumping, you can throw a storm or fungal just about anywhere in an army and be sure you're being efficient with it. You also have to have better focus on where your units are and what they're doing, since there's a bigger tendency to have stray units when they spread out than if clumped together. All in all, the game would not be made easier. Instead you'd have to think more about what you're doing with your army, angle of attack, which units to focus down (which would be far easier to see btw) and how to distribute spells/AOE.
no. splitting bioballs, hts, ghosts and etc. are extremely game-changing micro 'features'. removing any of them would make the game easier. when flash jumps over, you'll see that kind of movement anyway
On May 18 2011 01:41 ribboo wrote: no. splitting bioballs, hts, ghosts and etc. are extremely game-changing micro 'features'. removing any of them would make the game easier. when flash jumps over, you'll see that kind of movement anyway
re balance the game perhaps? This would make sc 2 not seem like ball vs ball every single game.
Honestly, if this doesn't get fixed by blizzard, then in a matter of a few years I expect someone to just make their own "mod" for this. Eventually, everyone would only play the game with the mod (if it was done properly). Then Blizzard would be forced to follow suit.
Well, it would only be a good change if the game would be completely rebalanced. Protoss would suck major ass if their aoe spells could not be used to a great effect f.ex. If blizzard would agree to rebalance everything, yes. But since they won't do that ever, no.
On May 18 2011 01:06 Yaotzin wrote: Why do people say clumping is "unrealistic"? Any army tries to be compact...
Clumping is unnatural because splash / area attacks can kill more easily. Sadly Blizzard kept clumping units and had to nerf area attacks like Siege Tanks and Psi Storm. Sadly this makes these two attacks less awesome than they should be. All in all its a bad tradeoff ...
On May 18 2011 01:42 Barrin wrote: Honestly, if this doesn't get fixed by blizzard, then in a matter of a few years I expect someone to just make their own "mod" for this. Eventually, everyone would only play the game with the mod (if it was done properly). Then Blizzard would be forced to follow suit.
You heard it here first.
Wont really become popular because the ladder is still under the domination of Blizzard. Even if something like this would get popular in some circles the tournaments would still run with the "Blizzard mod of perfection".
I don't think the problem comes from units pushing each other , in his sc2bw mod Maverck disabled the "push" feature and units are still able to clump just as well. According to him the way bw unit move in group is a consequence of the 8 direction only movement , and the pathing , something that is really hard to make in the sc2 engine.
I wonder , did the author actually implemented a spread mechanicthat looks like bw? If it's the case if think it would be extremely interesting for the sc2bw mod to implement it. Can you have more information? ( i hope the author will read my post , but seing how big the thread is I'm not so hopeful .. )
On May 18 2011 01:42 Barrin wrote: Honestly, if this doesn't get fixed by blizzard, then in a matter of a few years I expect someone to just make their own "mod" for this. Eventually, everyone would only play the game with the mod (if it was done properly). Then Blizzard would be forced to follow suit.
You heard it here first.
may that day come sooner than you predicted..seriously can a mapmaker out there start making maps with this and rebalancing it? ICCup this is your chance to take back the spotlight!
This would be amazing but would mean a complete overhaul of the game in terms of balance, it would be a totally different game almost, and I seriously doubt Blizzard would therefore ever implement it, it would be cool too.
Also, non/clumping also makes Melee units more powerfull due to increased surface area.
On May 18 2011 01:41 ribboo wrote: no. splitting bioballs, hts, ghosts and etc. are extremely game-changing micro 'features'. removing any of them would make the game easier. when flash jumps over, you'll see that kind of movement anyway
Actually if anything it makes the game tougher to play (especially for terrans). Bioball dps would drop dramatically and siege tanks would do next to no splash damage. Personally I think its a good change but I absolutely agree that there is a 0% chance that blizzard will implement this because it will simply be too game changing. Mostly for people who did not play brood war but like watching/playing this game. They do have to cater to the casual community as well.
I dunno I think I like the original clumping better, yeah the screenshots look better but it seems like that would just artificially slow the game down in a way that would be annoying. Also it would take away from some of the splitting and micro that does happen and I think it is really entertaining to watch.
Like if you see a a good ZvT game, the terran army will already look like that kinda, thought not in motion so much - which I like because it makes them vulnerable when moving, but they can still split/spread if they are fast enough.
So I'm not convinced that this would just automatically make the game better, though I might like it if I saw the finished product, but the biggest problem with this is just how much of a drastic change it is to the game. All balancing would have to be thrown out the window going all the way back to beta, aoe would have to be redone, range and melee would have to be retweaked, all the upheaval caused by the existing balance changes would just be a big waste of time. I don't think the community would survive a change this big, maybe if they made it part of HOTS.
I've always preferred dynamic unit movement because it feels more natural, I also hate it when my stalkers get in front of my zealots and I'm stuck having to move my zealots in front of my stalkers, who push my stalkers further forward and if I'm close to my enemy's siege line I can sometimes lose a stalker or two, it's annoying. ;( also, dynamic unit movements make your army look more intimidating
This would be a great addition, but don't expect it at least before Heart of the swarm, because it's so game changing it would put us all back in beta time's balance.
Wow, an excellent suggestion, hope it could come to fruition. Would definitely improve both the playing and spectating aspect of SC2. Now bring back the lurkers!
On May 18 2011 01:48 Treemonkeys wrote: I dunno I think I like the original clumping better, yeah the screenshots look better but it seems like that would just artificially slow the game down in a way that would be annoying. Also it would take away from some of the splitting and micro that does happen and I think it is really entertaining to watch.
Well obviously all of the area attacks have to be changed to either deal more damage OR have a wayyy bigger area. Siege Tanks and Psi Storms could have the same damage as in BW for example and make them much more imposing and Banelings might have their splash radius increased so you still need to split those Marines ...
Since you should be able to stack your units in a tight ball through micro (for defense) the increased damage could really wreak havoc and make microing / splitting much more important for all races.
Dynamic unit movement is EXACTLY what I want in SC2. The lack of dynamic unit movement is my biggest pet peeve with the game. I've thought about it a ton but couldn't really talk about it because I never really had a concrete idea of what it was until the OP described it as he did. (I would eloquently described BW movement as "cooler".)
As it stands now you need a really high APM to make your units move in a dynamic way - I think it should be the opposite, that they move dynamically automatically and you have to use your APM to try to make them move in clump form.
That said, it is not a black and white issue - too much dynamic-ism could really fudge things up. (let us never return to dragoon AI...) Perhaps make a hierarchy of largest units to smallest units in which larger units can push smaller units, but smaller units must go the long way around large units. Stalkers, for instance, could push zealots and templars around, while zealots have to move around stalkers but could push templars as well. And perhaps decrease the amount of pushing that is done between equally sized units - but still give them some lee-way.
Yeah, kind of a sketchy idea. What I do know though is that SC2 movement leaves much to be desired when compared to BW.
It means that all the changes and tweaks Blizzard has done since the beta will be gone to waste, not to mention every player will have to readjust to the changes that would come as a result of having less clumped units. Maps also have to represent this change as well...
A lot of work for something that might or might not work.
If you just put this change in with no game adjustments it would be a nightmare.
You could cut up pieces of shit to look like broodwar units and all you people would jump on it....on topic, the unit movements and mechanics make for the best most awesome micro battles and army destroying like never before this change would ruin everything just so it looks like broodwar -_-
On May 18 2011 02:08 Legless wrote: You could cut up pieces of shit to look like broodwar units and all you people would jump on it....on topic, the unit movements and mechanics make for the best most awesome micro battles and army destroying like never before this change would ruin everything just so it looks like broodwar -_-
The only micro I've seen in this game is marine micro. Anyone who says SC2 is more micro intensive than BW is delusional. What made best players best were their units micros.
On May 18 2011 02:08 ckukner wrote: Why the f. Blizzard haven't balanced the game around dynamic movement instead of this borrng clumped up balls.
Please Blizzard if you do this I'll sacrifice a cow!
lol the funny thing is Dynamic movement would make cows more useful because they won't be stuck behind lings.
On May 18 2011 02:08 Legless wrote: You could cut up pieces of shit to look like broodwar units and all you people would jump on it....on topic, the unit movements and mechanics make for the best most awesome micro battles and army destroying like never before this change would ruin everything just so it looks like broodwar -_-
I can't believe this thread reached 15 pages... The unit placement you show in the screenshots can be achieved by manually positioning and controlling your units, you know, instead of putting everything into 1 group and spamming move command. Just because players don't bother to micro their units doesn't mean that there a game design issue.
So let me get this straight... Koreans actually want to remove high apm micro potential from SC2??? if you want your units to stay spreed out when you move them, all you have to do is magic box move them. The SC2 movement AI now allows players to choose between maximizing their firepower or minimizing how vulnerable they are to AoE damage. In BW increasing your firepower was, more or less, only based on increasing your concave.
I'm going to explain why I think the people saying this will take micro away are wrong.
1. The only case where you see splitting micro is marine vs banneling (or anything vs banes). All other splitting is done pre battle. That's because unlike other ranged aoe units, bannelings are "melee" units. This allows you to run away and split. You don't have to micro the marines you already split because they will automatically fire when bannelings come into range.
For every other unit besides banes, it makes no sense to split mid battle since you are trying to maximize dps. Splitting a group of marines off against colossi is ineffective because they will move out of range, while not attacking, and take hits while doing it. The most effective way of increasing dps is to make a concave but this is done before the battle not after it starts.
2. The battles are too short to allow for much micro. Everyone hoping that when/if Jaedong or Flash switch will suddenly show everyone how to properly play the game with perfect splits mimicking those screenshots will be extremely disappointed. It's not going to happen. The battles are simply too short to reward a mid battle split.
As someone mentioned earlier, it also makes targeting impossible/pointless. It's impossible to, for example, target HTs with lings as your armies attack because the HTs are behind a solid wall of units or worse yet in the middle of the ball. Increasing battle duration will allow player to manually target specific units, allowing a good player to increase the value of his army compared to one that just a-moves. It also gives more time for unique unit abilities to be used to the fullest extent.
Wouldn't it just be better to implement some sort of army formations instead of forcing armies to be either spread, or clumped?
I think the most interesting solution would be to give every unit a 'bubble' attribute. Friendly units will try to avoid violating another unit's bubble. Players could chose between clumping their units and having them spread out. The benefit of clumped units would be higher dps density, whereas spread units would be less vulnerable to aoe.
I think that providing more options would make the game better and far more interesting, than forcing a single grouping behavior.
No thanks, I'd rather watch progammers do it by themselves. Magic boxing 20 mutas is beautiful to watch. Spreading out your protoss ball better than your opponent's protoss ball often decides battles, there's no point in having the computer do it tbh.
On May 18 2011 02:22 Count9 wrote: No thanks, I'd rather watch progammers do it by themselves. Magic boxing 20 mutas is beautiful to watch. Spreading out your protoss ball better than your opponent's protoss ball often decides battles, there's no point in having the computer do it tbh.
Pressing S once to magic box is beautiful? hmm ok.
The thing is that this kind of adjustment to the game would add one more stat to balance the game. Marines might be a little bit tighter than bulky Marauders, Zerglings could be almost as tightly as they are now while Roaches need a lot more space, Colossi would never clump up as tightly as they are now and have at least one width of the unit between two of them ...
The reason why this is good is that the "dps per attacking square" would not be as high as it is now, thus battles would not end as fast as they do right now. Also high tech units like Colossi would be spread a lot and thus be a lot more vulnerable than they are now.
Consequently the macro mechanics which speed up unit production in SC2 could be nerfed by a lot since you wont need to produce as many units anymore. MULEs might be ok if they produced less money, larva inject could be ok with just 2 extra larvae and chronoboost could produce only 25% speed boost. All of these are thing which got complained about a lot in the past.
On May 18 2011 02:08 Legless wrote: You could cut up pieces of shit to look like broodwar units and all you people would jump on it....on topic, the unit movements and mechanics make for the best most awesome micro battles and army destroying like never before this change would ruin everything just so it looks like broodwar -_-
The problem is that the tight and perfect unit control in SC2 makes it necessary that the game is perfectly balanced, which is quite complicated. With a less tight unit movement the "incoming dps" is not as high and thus there is a greater chance to survive by running your units away ... so I dont think the game would be ruined as much as you think. I think all "fans of BW" could tell you that that game had a lot of micro as well.
Sorry but it would be extremely disadvantageous for Protoss since they can only combat high supply armies with either HT or Colossi. Reducing the clumping reduces the effectiveness of aoe units, and increases the effectiveness of armies that do well in small sizes across a choke. The game would quickly fall out of balance.
This would also increase defenders advantage at chokes because units would funnel harder, which means you can defend with less units overall and thus can be more spread out. Spread of battlefields not only makes the battles last longer but also makes it overall more interesting to watch and play.
Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
On May 18 2011 02:33 Xlancer wrote: Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
In bw , units were more spread out and you still had to micro more, so your point is completely wrong.
this would only work if they completely changed up the balance of the game because certain units would be very bad and certain units would be very good... which is the only reason i dont like it... it would take way too long to implement all these changes
Having somewhat more variable spreading would improve the gameplay as AoE attacks with increased damage may or may not deal more damage than they currently do, based on the micro of both players.
I think units standing still should group up almost as much as they currently are, but it would be best if they spread more while moving.
I think this would make it a thousand times better as a spectator sport, units like Tanks and Colossi, and storms would all do more damage and feel more ultimate, and exciting to watch like in BW, without being OP, and having more micro-intensive, or at least more variable and thus more exciting battles. Colossi probably still wouldn't live up to Reavers, but they would be better.
On May 18 2011 02:38 CHOdan wrote: this would only work if they completely changed up the balance of the game because certain units would be very bad and certain units would be very good... which is the only reason i dont like it... it would take way too long to implement all these changes
Well there are two expansions to come and those are certainly going to change the balance of power with new units ... so rebalancing the game is inevitable.
Been saying this since Beta. Ball on Ball is boring. Best thing they could do is bring back the formation march hotkey from WC3. (That or take the Korean's advice and fix the unit movement mechanics)
On May 18 2011 02:31 tehemperorer wrote: Sorry but it would be extremely disadvantageous for Protoss since they can only combat high supply armies with either HT or Colossi. Reducing the clumping reduces the effectiveness of aoe units, and increases the effectiveness of armies that do well in small sizes across a choke. The game would quickly fall out of balance.
At the same time it would make it much harder to kite the entire amry against zealots, making something more than meat shields.
It would be obvious that balance will change, but it is just not viable to talk about it without experience. Just like nobody but pro's should go into the deep conversations about balance, here its even more true.
On May 18 2011 02:33 Xlancer wrote: Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
In bw , units were more spread out and you still had to micro more, so your point is completely wrong.
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.
On May 18 2011 02:33 Xlancer wrote: Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
In bw , units were more spread out and you still had to micro more, so your point is completely wrong.
I'm not sure but he could be ironic.
But yeah the sentiment that micro would somehow be easier if they made a change like this is plain wrong.
"Hey if it's trickier for me to consolidate my army in battle then AoE abilities will be easier to dodge!".
By this logic leaving half your army in your base against any form of AoE ability is a viable strategy.
On May 18 2011 02:33 Xlancer wrote: Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
In bw , units were more spread out and you still had to micro more, so your point is completely wrong.
I believe you missed his point. Imo he pointed the attitude of those people.
From a spectator point of view it would be a brilliant change. I find that often watching SC2 battles is rather dull when compared with Brood War fights. Although I do enjoy the mechanics of SC2 and I am unsure how this would change that.
On May 18 2011 02:31 tehemperorer wrote: Sorry but it would be extremely disadvantageous for Protoss since they can only combat high supply armies with either HT or Colossi. Reducing the clumping reduces the effectiveness of aoe units, and increases the effectiveness of armies that do well in small sizes across a choke. The game would quickly fall out of balance.
At the same time it would make it much harder to kite the entire amry against zealots, making something more than meat shields.
It would be obvious that balance will change, but it is just not viable to talk about it without experience. Just like nobody but pro's should go into the deep conversations about balance, here its even more true.
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.
On May 18 2011 02:44 BanelingXD wrote: Been saying this since Beta. Ball on Ball is boring. Best thing they could do is bring back the formation march hotkey from WC3. (That or take the Korean's advice and fix the unit movement mechanics)
Q: How do you know SC2 is for fags?
A: The balls are always touching.
That has less to do with the way the game is designed than with how players tend to use their units.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
On May 18 2011 02:31 tehemperorer wrote: Sorry but it would be extremely disadvantageous for Protoss since they can only combat high supply armies with either HT or Colossi. Reducing the clumping reduces the effectiveness of aoe units, and increases the effectiveness of armies that do well in small sizes across a choke. The game would quickly fall out of balance.
At the same time it would make it much harder to kite the entire amry against zealots, making something more than meat shields.
It would be obvious that balance will change, but it is just not viable to talk about it without experience. Just like nobody but pro's should go into the deep conversations about balance, here its even more true.
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.
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.
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.
On May 18 2011 02:33 Xlancer wrote: Anyone else find it amusing how half of the responses here are saying, "Yeah, I wish the AI would keep my units more spread out, so that I don't have to micro them to avoid AoE damage." g.g.
In bw , units were more spread out and you still had to micro more, so your point is completely wrong.
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.
i really would enjoy this as i always felt it was a bug that 3 thors can 1 shot all my fenixes if they ball up. i do worry this would be yet another nerf to HT storms
On May 18 2011 02:44 BanelingXD wrote: Been saying this since Beta. Ball on Ball is boring. Best thing they could do is bring back the formation march hotkey from WC3. (That or take the Korean's advice and fix the unit movement mechanics)
Q: How do you know SC2 is for fags?
A: The balls are always touching.
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.
I feel like this change is totally against the spirit of the game. SC2 is a game that is a hell of a lot less dependent on single units and so comparing it to other games that are completely dependent on controlling single or small groups of units is very different.
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.
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 02:31 tehemperorer wrote: Sorry but it would be extremely disadvantageous for Protoss since they can only combat high supply armies with either HT or Colossi. Reducing the clumping reduces the effectiveness of aoe units, and increases the effectiveness of armies that do well in small sizes across a choke. The game would quickly fall out of balance.
At the same time it would make it much harder to kite the entire amry against zealots, making something more than meat shields.
It would be obvious that balance will change, but it is just not viable to talk about it without experience. Just like nobody but pro's should go into the deep conversations about balance, here its even more true.
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.
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 ...
this is way blown out of proportion. sc2 AI movement is more dynamic than BW in that it has greater control. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The thing about deathballs is that people generally don't micro or split their armies because it's actually harmful to do so.
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.
So where's the petition for this? Just about everyone is agreement this would be a good change; and even if not implemented as described in the opening, something to that extent is still pretty good idea.
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".
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.
people are mistaking deathballs for something else. you see a large army move across the map, and you call that 'deathball.'
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.
I'm a bit worried about hellions because if they get buffed in any way to account for greater spread, they would be OP against worker lines I feel. However, I fell they already so strong and causing units to spread will just increase micro needed for them but not make them underpowered in non-harassment scenarios.
I believe they should not cause units to spread more while standing still, only somewhat while moving.
It won't happen, not in the expansions or ever. It may have been a decent idea to keep this back in beta etc, but the game is already out and this isn't a "balance" change.
Thors will be auto-terrible against mutas, Hellions will need to be removed or have some sort of wide-radius flame shot, Banelings would need to be removed or huge AOE size changes, the other spells like fungal/storm/emp would also need to be changed pretty severely. Other units would need to be subbed it...making this probably like pretty-BW with easier mechanics (auto-cast, MBS etc).
On May 18 2011 04:02 PartyBiscuit wrote: It won't happen, not in the expansions or ever. It may have been a decent idea to keep this back in beta etc, but the game is already out and this isn't a "balance" change.
Thors will be auto-terrible against mutas, Hellions will need to be removed or have some sort of wide-radius flame shot, Banelings would need to be removed or huge AOE size changes, the other spells like fungal/storm/emp would also need to be changed pretty severely. Other units would need to be subbed it...making this probably like pretty-BW with easier mechanics (auto-cast, MBS etc).
You mean changes would have to be made to other parts of the game for this to work? Incredibly insightful.
Yes, changes would have to be made. The argument is that these would be for the better. Thors aren't incredibly great against Mutalisks anymore anyway - Thors are large, clunky, and shoot really slow, so unless you have a lot and the Zerg player doesn't magic box them, they don't help out a ton anyway. Hellions would be perfectly fine - like someone else said, their attack is the same as the Lurker (in a line) and the Lurker's attack worked perfectly fine without this clumping going on. Banelings would hardly need to be removed - they'd still be good and they would also spread a lot themselves, meaning Tanks couldn't just blow down 12 of them all at once. Fungal/Storm/EMP would get a larger radius and maybe a slight damage increase, and this is how Storm was before. It really wouldn't be a massive change. It would be an expansion-esque change, but it's definitely do-able.
On May 18 2011 04:02 PartyBiscuit wrote: It won't happen, not in the expansions or ever. It may have been a decent idea to keep this back in beta etc, but the game is already out and this isn't a "balance" change.
Thors will be auto-terrible against mutas, Hellions will need to be removed or have some sort of wide-radius flame shot, Banelings would need to be removed or huge AOE size changes, the other spells like fungal/storm/emp would also need to be changed pretty severely. Other units would need to be subbed it...making this probably like pretty-BW with easier mechanics (auto-cast, MBS etc).
Only really applies to units on the ground. You can obv. still stack air units.
Like the guy above me said, of course there would be balance changes, but it would no doubt make the game a lot better.
Uh..making units spread won't make a the game "like BW". Many RTS games have that dynamic motion mechanic I bet, not just BW. Why so defensive of sc2 anyway? BW mechanics are what BW an amazing game, why not allow SC2 to gain some of those benefits? The death balls are a bit of a problem in terms of gameplay and in terms of spectating, this would be an excellent way to deal with it.
If Marines auto-split, we'd never see marine splitting vs banelings, which is the most impressive type of micro in the game.
The game is balanced around clumping, and manually unclumping units to guard against AOE/get a good concave taking micro. Auto-spread makes for an entirely separate game.
On May 18 2011 05:04 Ribbon wrote: If Marines auto-split, we'd never see marine splitting vs banelings, which is the most impressive type of micro in the game.
The game is balanced around clumping, and manually unclumping units to guard against AOE/get a good concave taking micro. Auto-spread makes for an entirely separate game.
You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving. You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change?
I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway.
Yeah SC2 is easier because you can have more than 12 in a group but I think in almost every situation it would be better to have groups that small using all 1-0 keys.
Those spread out armies look so much more badass and intimidating marching across a battlefield. It makes the armies look bigger makes you more excited when they finally clash. But implementing something like this would have to be a HotS or LotV implementation. The impact on game balance would be so insane that so many units would need a complete overhaul when it comes to damage, cost, etc.
On May 18 2011 01:41 ribboo wrote: no. splitting bioballs, hts, ghosts and etc. are extremely game-changing micro 'features'. removing any of them would make the game easier. when flash jumps over, you'll see that kind of movement anyway
Actually if anything it makes the game tougher to play (especially for terrans). Bioball dps would drop dramatically and siege tanks would do next to no splash damage. Personally I think its a good change but I absolutely agree that there is a 0% chance that blizzard will implement this because it will simply be too game changing. Mostly for people who did not play brood war but like watching/playing this game. They do have to cater to the casual community as well.
you could obviously just press in the middle/just in front of your army, and they would group together. just as when flying units are very spread out, until you do the very same. So you would be able to do bio-balls, or use the dynamic movement to easier deal with tanks, banelings and collosi.
On May 18 2011 05:39 Ineffability~ wrote: It's just visible that people want broodwar with better graphics, deep in our hearts we know that broodwar was waay awesomer than sc 2
People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. - K, MiB
Just from a visual standpoint i hate the way units clump together and simply push other units away. It looks awful especially with big units like tanks and thors, i really hate it. When big groups move together it looks so unnatural and weird as well.
Even aside from the gameplay changes i would welcome it so the game's movement and animations doesn't look so goofy and C&C like. Even though BW units turned instantly, things like moving a goliath back and forth didn't look as terrible as moving thors around in a group.
Edit: But in regards to the pictures i don't think things should be spaced THAT far out... BW never did that, you could still bunch things up if you wanted.
On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change?
I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway.
You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home. And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change?
I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway.
You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home. And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Exactly what i thought about the marine-baneling argument :D.
I really think the game would be better if this was adjusted, not only would it look cooler, but it would also lead to more entertaining battles. Controlling your units would still benefit the outcome of the battle as much as it would when the units are clumped up. And I don't think it would be to hard to balance out AoE that would get to weak. I would prefer that AoE attacks didn't kill armies so fast anyway. And hellions could just get a slightly wider attack or something?
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again. -Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers. -Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change?
I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway.
You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home. And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Exactly what i thought about the marine-baneling argument :D.
I really think the game would be better if this was adjusted, not only would it look cooler, it wouldn't be to hard to balance out AoE that would get to weak. I would prefer that AoE attacks didn't kill armies so fast though.
Well, it works like this. Marines are really really strong..and cheap. They destroy stuff. So we give them a low amount of health and let em keep their strength. Really, a ball of glass cannons should die really fast, and aoe is mostly for balls of glass cannons. So you have to ask for the units that aoe is used on to be weaker if you want aoe to be weaker. Just my 2 cents
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote: Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again. -Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers. -Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
The game wouldn't become easier..... -.-'. Think about it, if peasants could walk 2 squares all the time in chess the game wouldn't become easier since both players would benefit from this.
Now you might say well chess is good as it is. I agree, but then again the pathing in BW worked differently than in SC2.. =/, and i kinda liked it better.
On May 18 2011 06:01 Bippzy wrote: Well, it works like this. Marines are really really strong..and cheap. They destroy stuff. So we give them a low amount of health and let em keep their strength. Really, a ball of glass cannons should die really fast, and aoe is mostly for balls of glass cannons. So you have to ask for the units that aoe is used on to be weaker if you want aoe to be weaker. Just my 2 cents
That's a little narrow minded isn't it. As people have pointed out this wouldn't necessarily make marine splitting easier since the banelings also would come more spread out. And worst case scenario you can always make the AoE larger.
While this will likely never happen, it's still a good idea.
It basically comes down to this: Currently: Ground units clump up all the time, no matter what you do. Suggested: Players have the option of keeping units spread out, or clumping them up, and having a good spread or a tight ball both require similar level of control.
The current system is simply limiting. It makes things easier for one side, much, much harder for the other. Less control means less way for skill to shine.
This would make the game soooo... much better for a darn lot of reasons.
I thought about this from the first time I saw how units clump up in SC 2 and as someone else mentioned it also, this isn't the first topic regarding this. What makes it different are the images. Damn, being able to see how it would look like makes me go nuts.
Anyway there are a few major cons mentioned in the topic and I think those are somewhat avoidable:
1: Breaking the balance achieved so far; If they choose to implement this along with a new expansion it won't make much difference. As they add new units to the game it will affect the current balance. They will have to re-tweak the units anyway and not only the new ones, the old ones too as some will act differently along the new ones.
2: Making the AI spread the units for you it's making the game more dumb; Who said this implies making the AI spread the units for you? As I get it, it's about making the AI so it will allow you to spread the units and keep them that way if you want. If you, let's say, move/rally the units to one spot they should clump as they currently do. But if you spread them out they should retain the distance while moving and only clump back when they approach the destination or while passing a choke etc. Giving the player different options (spread or clump the army) offers them the possibility to make decisions thus raising the skill ceiling and offering better games overall. Taking options away from the players (even if it makes the game harder) means "dumbing the game" as you (so called) elitists like to say. Currently it is NOT possible to SPREAD the army (only while standing still but you'll have to move at one point). Currently you can DIVIDE the army in a few smaller groups of clumped units, but that's not spreading is dividing/splitting. Replacing the "A"ttack command with (lets say) a password will make the game harder, but will it make the game better? Should Blizzard implement that? Definitely not. So quit the fake elitism and try to think before making useless posts.
Now lets take a look at the pros.
1: It will make the game visually more appealing; Damn, just think about this... Just imagine those 2 armies from the pictures (the zerg and protoss ones)... Imagine those lings with that speed running through the spread armies go surround those Immortals... Imagine those zealots charging from behind, again through that spread army just to be there as the first to engage in battle, just as a true zealot... Imagine those Immortals squeezing through that army to get in range to shoot the Roaches... Imagine those Roaches snipping the Templars that try to get in range for a storm or a feedback on the Infestors. All this will be possible and easily observable if the units stay spread once you spread them. Now compare it with the current situation. How appealing do you find those Immortals/Zealots/Templars dancing behind the Stalkers trying to get in range, or those lings/Ultralisks dancing and kissing behind the roaches and hydras.
2: It will raise the skill ceiling; How much do you think it raises the skill ceiling not being able to observe what a ball of units is made off or not being able to target a certain unit because they clump so much? Do you think currently it requires skill to land a good emp/storm/fungal? No, because the way the unit clump makes it worth as long as you don't storm/emp/fungal destructible rocks. It will make the battles run a bit slower so you can actually observe what is going on and micro around. Currently is BOOM.. voila you lost to an 1a-er although you have triple his apm. It will allow players to decide if they want to clump or to spread the units. A Terran will keep his bio clumped to maximize the dps but as soon as he sees banelings nearby he should better spread those out. It will bring terrain advantage to a more important role. 2 high skilled players will easily spread/clump the army when necessary but if they catch the other one in a bad position where there is no place to spread the army, he will sure have a better hand in that fight. (I know position is still very important in the current state but this will allow you to maximize your positional advantage)
3: Giving back the units the old impressive fire power; What gives you those nerd chills when you watch a Starcraft game? Those nukes that wrecks havoc in the opponents army, those siege tanks/storms/reavers/lurkers with OVERPOWERED damage. In Starcraft 2 those kind of units got nerfed, nerfed and nerfed more because, as long as you are not that bot with 1500 apm, your units will clump and that OP damage would make the game look broken. Being able to spread the army will allow a good opponent to avoid that damage making his skill and mistake-less play stand out. But if your micro slips and your units clump, your opponent will be able to abuse that and land a storm that will rape your army. The kind of storm that gives nerd chills, not puff puff puff storms we see this days.
I could think of a few more but I think those are the more important ones. The difference is amazing, making it worth it no matter how much work it involves. Although I don't think it would be that hard to implement. Then again, for Blizzard are just resources spent useless. As the game was accepted in the current state, there is no point to invest in something that is not strictly necessary.
But we can still hope, Blizzard has the "bad" habit to impress.
Sorry for my english, as you probably can tell I'm not a native speaker.
People saying that it's a bad idea because you would have to rebalance the game and that would hurt the proscene. I just don't understand you. This is better for the game. It affects all races. If it does unbalance things then fine, I'm sure blizzard can balance it again. Besides, many people don't think the game is COMPLETELY balanced at the moment, so if anything it needs to be done now that the game is still young, instead of later when the game is even more stable. This is a must in my opinion to help with the games longetivity. I can't believe anyone would be fine with the way it is now, everything balled up, cant tell what is what, and small looking 200 armies. Anyone who ever watched bw would agree that the current way is just wrong.
All those MBS versus Non-MBS threads. The guys arguing against this (they believe it will make the game 'easier' and it's 'too late') are more than likely the same guys who were chanting hooray for MBS. Kind of ironic once you think about it. Yes, finally the debate(s) have come full circle!
Excuse me for a second, but something has been irking me for a while.
Hearing someone say, "but this will make marine splitting obsolete!" boggles my head. Since when did we coin the expression marine splitting? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out banlings = bad. Clumped up marines = poof. So, MKP shows good micro in a televised match and all the sudden we're bombarded with this silly expression? O Brother, where art thou! You know what other old meme, expression comes to mind? "We v-tec players have been doing this for years!" Oh yes, I said it. I couldn't think of a better place to bring it back though.
Okay, back on subject before I get out of line.
Pwere that isn't what's being suggested at all. There wouldn't be a choice. This would be alteration to the AI pathing. So instead of clumping, they would move like the given screenshots. The way the AI is set in the game right now is limiting and aesthetically unpleasing. Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
The notion that this makes the game easier is nothing more than an optical illusion.
This should be implemented as part of Heart of the Swarm. even 200/200 balls don't look like very big armies anymore and it makes me sad.
Although each units buffer should be relative to its size. Zerglings should not spread as much as tanks, for example. And ideally it would only take effect while moving, and units should still cluster while going up a ramp.
I'm concerned about splash balance, but that should be adjusted. If it is released as part of HotS players/tournaments can still run on WoL for a month while everyone adjusts. (In theory)
But realistically I don't see it being implemented.
It would be interesting if there were "spread out" and "group up" movement buttons. Though it would definitely change gameplay, I'm not sure it would be completely detrimental. For example, if you spread out your marines to avoid lots of banelings or tank splash, sure your marines will stay alive longer, but your dps at the front of the line is now terrible.
This sounds really amazing as a Zerg player, but it seems like it would make Zerg overpowered vs units like tanks and colossi. And I'm not sure, it just seems like the game in general would have to be completely changed in order for this to work. Nice post though and that is awesome pictures.
Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
Changing the ai in the way that the OP suggests will not fix the problem with units humping each other trying to get into range. That issue has nothing to do with unit clumping, but rather the fact that the pathing system does not register units as path blockers. The same problem exists with force fields.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
Now maybe, SC2 tanks started out far far far stronger than BW tanks since they had smartfire and the same damage, plus of the course the clumping issue.
Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
Changing the ai in the way that the OP suggests will not fix the problem with units humping each other trying to get into range. That issue has nothing to do with unit clumping, but rather the fact that the pathing system does not register units as path blockers. The same problem exists with force fields.
Yes, it does because it effectively minimizes it. Unit clumping amplifies the unit dry hump especially in close quarters. The AI doesn't acknowledge other units as path blockers. Yeah, that is a given. This pathing helps nullify that.
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote: Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
Yup, Blizzard keeps nerfing tanks in SC2 because of the AI alone. Started off at BW damage and the devs had to drop siege damage down to half that. lol
If you believe this would be good for starcraft 2 please sign it! Tell your friends etc.! Blizzard lately has been showing that they pay at least some attention to the competitive community's pleas....let's try to get their attention with this one.
Btw Nemukid one of your points was stated really well so I used it and fixed some of the grammar I hope you don't mind.
On May 18 2011 05:52 sushiman wrote: You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home.
Let's say it's working like in the OP's pics of the marine army. That army is trotting down to the Zerg base, who is going to defend with ling/bling. The formation will break and start to become chaotic as marines chase stuff and whatnot, but the rough shape will remain, with marines spread out over a big area rather than a clump. A shape that is massively detrimental to the baneling user.
And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
Well power is relative. AOE is powerful, but units like marines are also powerful, and AOE is the only thing holding them in check. If you nerf AOE (this would be an indirect nerf), then marines would be OP. So you'd have to nerf marines, making Terran UP, and so on. Changing such a fundamental aspect of the game throws absolutely everything up in the air.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Well no it would just make banelings flat out awful but anyway. I'm not saying a game with this kind of movement wouldn't be fun or have micro or whatever. I am saying it would require a drastic rebalance and even redesign of some units/spells that it would become a different game.
On May 18 2011 07:15 Brief.Starcraft wrote: Can a map be made with this movement type? Is there anyone out there interested in making one so we can see how it works in practice?
Technically it's already been done with the SC2 BW mod. I've looked through it but I'm not quite sure how the author changed the movement for some of the units.
For sure I think we can mess around with ideas like these in the editor and test them out. Especially if people actually try out the map and give some good feedback.
Blizzard probably won't do this since they're not into big changes since the new design team doesn't have the guts to really do anything serious.
Once things are in the game they're willing to leave it in the game. Namely Roach and other units like the Mothership that simply didn't work.
But if they are serious about eSports they need to do something like this. Make something that's far superior to any mod can do, introduce a hacked version of path finding. The current pathfinding is almost too good. Forces don't look bigger as they are bigger, just tight balls of units.
Zerg is incredibly unreadable at times. I've always had issues reading zerg to a point where I don't even use the health bars anymore because it just clutters up everything way too much.
There better be a TON of changes in HotS but I don't think there will be, oh well time will tell.
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote: Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again. -Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers. -Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
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
This is the problem with many of the "fixes" for sc2.
Unfortunately it seems blizzard is only willing to make extremely minor changes (5 seconds to build time... 20 seconds to a research... 2 damage... etc) to sc2, while changes like this would be huge and would essentially require a TON of stuff to be completely rebalanced.
While I'd LOVE to see it implemented somehow I don't see it happening (unless it happens with one of the expansions as that's the only time I can see blizzard making big changes)
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote: Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again. -Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers. -Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
+1 to this
Pros have to adjust to patches all the time.
So because it's a videogame armies have to look like shit while moving? I know it's a game, so was bw and unit movement looked way better and more natural, even if it was just a game. So from a lore standpoint all units should be hugging each other in a perfect circle instead of getting their own space? And making the game easier? The way it works currently makes the game easier. Managing your army in a ball is super easy, I can't imagine it being any easier. Obviously splash damage radius would be increased so I don't see how anything would be easier at all. It would be harder, and easier on the eyes.
A change like this would reshape the form of SC2 that we now know. A change like this will certainly not come with a patch, if it even comes at all.
And as many StarCraft 2 players keep saying: "The game is still too young." I am a big supporter of that statement and I hate how people continue to want changes to be made by the developers, instead of finding a way themselves.
StarCraft 2 after 3-4 years will be nothing like what we are experiancing today. Not only because of the expansions, but because of the understanding and mechanics that shall emprove amongst all with time. Imagine a SC2 progamer, or an average SC2 player with some general understanding of the game. Do you think that, if that player limits himself so that he must only put 12 units maximum in a control group, he will be better than a normal player? I say - Yes. Why? Because it's the opsticle in the way of the player, that forces him think, adapt, improve. SCBW players HAD to split their army in groups for 12. Nobody was whining about it. They delt with it. If they could not, they were considered weak, noobish etc..
In short: - A change like this won't come in a patch/soon. - Don't whine about the game being worse than SCBW, when the fact is you're not even trying to make it better for/by yourself.
Everyone today is a noob. And that will be proven in time.
P.S. I am sorry for my bad English. I did my best.
On May 18 2011 05:52 sushiman wrote: You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home.
Let's say it's working like in the OP's pics of the marine army. That army is trotting down to the Zerg base, who is going to defend with ling/bling. The formation will break and start to become chaotic as marines chase stuff and whatnot, but the rough shape will remain, with marines spread out over a big area rather than a clump. A shape that is massively detrimental to the baneling user.
And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
Well power is relative. AOE is powerful, but units like marines are also powerful, and AOE is the only thing holding them in check. If you nerf AOE (this would be an indirect nerf), then marines would be OP. So you'd have to nerf marines, making Terran UP, and so on. Changing such a fundamental aspect of the game throws absolutely everything up in the air.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Well no it would just make banelings flat out awful but anyway. I'm not saying a game with this kind of movement wouldn't be fun or have micro or whatever. I am saying it would require a drastic rebalance and even redesign of some units/spells that it would become a different game.
I'm not sure if you've played BW, but separating your marines against a zerg is generally a bad idea unless fighting lurkers. There are many occasions where not having your units separated is adventageous. Consider zergling/baneling against marines - if the marines are in a ball, the zerglings will only be able to hit the outmost of them, while banelings basically hit them all. Now if the marines are split up, zerglings are much more powerful since more of them can hit marines than if they are in a ball. This makes the gameplay more dynamic, since the formation you move in may affect how well you combat your opponents army. Right now you basically have one way only, which limits options.
As for AOE being weaker, you would also have to consider the above, that melee units will be more powerful as well - unless you clump your units up manually, which makes AOE more powerful again. And if it would prove to be too weak for some reason, greater radius of AOE would be an easy fix, if at all necessary. As I said in one of my earlier posts, more widespread firepower means longer battles and more time to decide what your AOE should be focused on. Decision making in battle would be more important.
Honestly, I don't think changing pathing would destroy the balance in a game that's still fairly new and far from completely balanced. Patches and expansions will change the game we know plenty enough anyway, why not try to make it as good as it could be?
Hopefully, this will take care of the dreadful deathball that everyone hates. Makes for boring and unoriginal games. This is part of the reason broodwar was incredibly fun to watch. Unit movements made for incredible micro intensive situations and THAT, folks, it what primarily makes spectating StarCraft games FUN, and ENTERTAINING to watch.
The new engine, with the concept of death ball really blew it for me.
I'm 100% for this change. I never played broodwar, but when watching bw, the fact that battles can take place without using the entire army to fire at once makes the game so much more interesting to watch. I tested out the no deathballs mod and it feels amazing. Also, units don't feel so weak and battles are much more interesting. One thing I was thinking was that if the ai only spread out when group selected, then it could still be possible to keep units close together by simply using multiple hotkeys, this would reward apm and make the game more interesting. Certain units would need smaller radius (like lings and zealots) while other units have larger radius (like thors, collosus, ultras). I can see this really making a huge difference.
I think the biggest thing is that you can hold chokes in a defensive position much much easier giving the defender a larger advantage, also you can defend with less units making teching more interesting.
I know this is probably not going to be the most popular opinion, but I honestly think it would be a mistake to have the units move in this way. Splash is pretty much required because units like marines and lings are just so effective in sc2. You can't weaken splash because tbh terran would never lose. I just really think this would be a gigantic buff to terran and nerf to everyone else
I just find it absolutely hilarious that the same arguments BW players used in BETA that SC2 players scoffed at in disgust, are the exact same arguments being used by SC2 players to refuse this change.
When will these players ever learn that we understand their viewpoint more than they do themselves. The SC2 players are theory-crafting, while the BW players are talking from experience.
(Bit of a generalization, not all SC2 players obviously, <3 to the ones that understand)
On May 18 2011 10:22 Jayrod wrote: I know this is probably not going to be the most popular opinion, but I honestly think it would be a mistake to have the units move in this way. Splash is pretty much required because units like marines and lings are just so effective in sc2. You can't weaken splash because tbh terran would never lose. I just really think this would be a gigantic buff to terran and nerf to everyone else
Zerglings would be much more powerful against marines and zealots. This would make zerg much stronger early game.
However it comes down to micro, if the Terran doesn't pay attention to his marines while moving, the zerglings can flank and utterly destroy them.
If the Terran does pay attention and reduces the surface area the marines the opposite will happen.
However with SC2, only the Terran can micro. The Zerg has to attack and pray that the Terran has bad micro.
Check out Flash vs Effort (OSL Final game 3), with Efforts flank catching Flash's army completely off-guard and killing his whole army, twice as many units as he should have.
This is the steps Effort took to do that. NOTE: This was 9 marines and 2 medics vs 12 zerglings.
1. Hide lings and wait for Flash's army to cross the bridge 2. Send lings in between the marines and medics, cutting off the medic healing. 3. Throw 2-3 lings on each marine, making sure the medics can't heal 4. Clean up the medics once all the marines are dead If this was SC2 the outcome would have been the same no matter what, 0 micro from Flash perfect flank by Effort and still the lings would do barely any damage. 9 marines would just clump stutter-step all the zerglings dead, maybe 3 marines would die, with medics not even one.
Split-second decision making and ling micro/aggression will be much more rewarded. Right now its like punching a brick wall. Because the marines move in a ball, there's actually no such thing as flanking.
On May 18 2011 07:15 Brief.Starcraft wrote: Can a map be made with this movement type? Is there anyone out there interested in making one so we can see how it works in practice?
Search "No Deathballs" on NA and I believe EU server, it's a custom map for Xel Naga and metal.
On May 18 2011 07:15 Brief.Starcraft wrote: Can a map be made with this movement type? Is there anyone out there interested in making one so we can see how it works in practice?
Search "No Deathballs" on NA and I believe EU server, it's a custom map for Xel Naga and metal.
IIRC no deathballs just increased the radius of units. This just means less tightly packed balls, but it is still not the desired army movement we are looking for.
something like this could conceivably be done in an expansion pack
blizzard has shown they aren't averse to making sweeping, massively game changing additions in expansion packs
compare Warcraft 3 in its state right before the expansion beta dropped to the first round of beta testing and it's like whoa, they completely revamped many, many global balance issues
- unit spellcasters were overwhelming nerfed directly and indirectly with the new units - experience distribution amongst heroes changed singificantly - relative strength of static defense was completely reworked across all 4 races - racial item shops fixed up a couple glaring racial weakness (orcs couldnt heal until tier 3, for example) and completely changed the way the game was played
the reason i bring this up is because a lot of people in this thread say "oh blizzard will never do something that drastic" but their track record says otherwise
brood war didn't have any higher order global scale rebalancing like warcraft 3 did, but the units themselves created such overwhelming hard counters that it completely changed the dynamics of every single matchup. they did however do some very serious game-changing modifciations to tier 3 units a few months after brood war came out (the cost of teching to science vessels was so outrageous you could almost never get them out, and all battlecruisers/carriers/ultralisks all were significantly cheaper on supply)
On May 18 2011 11:09 Zanno wrote: something like this could conceivably be done in an expansion pack
blizzard has shown they aren't averse to making sweeping, massively game changing additions in expansion packs
compare Warcraft 3 in its state right before the expansion beta dropped to the first round of beta testing and it's like whoa, they completely revamped many, many global balance issues
- unit spellcasters were overwhelming nerfed directly and indirectly with the new units - experience distribution amongst heroes changed singificantly - relative strength of static defense was completely reworked across all 4 races - racial item shops fixed up a couple glaring racial weakness (orcs couldnt heal until tier 3, for example) and completely changed the way the game was played
the reason i bring this up is because a lot of people in this thread say "oh blizzard will never do something that drastic" but their track record says otherwise
brood war didn't have any higher order global scale rebalancing like warcraft 3 did, but the units themselves created such overwhelming hard counters that it completely changed the dynamics of every single matchup. they did however do some very serious game-changing modifciations to tier 3 units a few months after brood war came out (the cost of teching to science vessels was so outrageous you could almost never get them out, and all battlecruisers/carriers/ultralisks all were significantly cheaper on supply)
Man I hope you are right dood. I just really don't like SC2 battles right now. I love the SC2 pro scene because it's new and it's fun to watch the macro and tactics, but the actually battles are mostly disappointing and lame... please oh please blizzard!
I don't think this will happen to WoL even if Blizzard wants to. At best we can hope Blizzard will do something in HoTS. This is really cool and make SC2 more exciting and more strategic, not just one storm or one EMP to own them all.
On May 18 2011 17:09 MavercK wrote: seriously why is there no map download link -.- or information at all on how this was done
i must know !
Looking to add it to your SC2BW mod? :p
On topic, I have to think the introduction of more powerful splash units would help to correct this without actually needing to change the engine. If the opponent has incredible splash units(BW storm, reavers, spider mines, tanks, lurkers), then suddenly the "deathball" tactic becomes suicide, and manual splitting is forced.
These are things Blizzard can easily add in HotS or even a patch, but then the question is if they're willing to. I think the balance team is aware that they should be balancing the game based on the highest level of play, but the question is if they actually will. Investors want the game to be as accessible as possible, which means the game suddenly needs to be simplistic. Blizzard needs to either follow through with the intent to make SC2 a serious eSport at the risk of losing some income, or they need to cater to lower league players. The alternative is for the community to take the matter into their own hands, and effectively recreate the game. For the pros, by the pros if you will.
Sooo.. Wouldn't De-clumping the units mannualy be one of those awesome testaments of a players skill everybody cheered about in Broodwar and cried about when they were missing in SC2?
I remember seeing tons and tons of threads during the beta about missing Muta stacking,being able to automine and selecting multiple buildings etc etc
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote: Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments.
6 years ago in the NHL, there were some major rule changes that were brought about. Some of the changes were the removal of the two-line pass, the area behind the net being the only area past the goal line that a goaltender could play the puck, and most importantly the changes on goaltender's pad sizes, and an increase of four feet in each offensive zone, essentially changing the position of the blue lines and goal lines. This drastically changed many aspects of the game, and forced every professional hockey player to relearn things that they had known since playing in the league. And yet it still happened because, while debatable to the casual spectator, the league felt that it improved the quality of the game. And this was the NHL, something much grander than SC2 could ever dream of becoming. A league with players who had million dollar salaries.
And yet here you and others are, saying that it 100% wouldn't be reasonable to make any major changes to SC2 because it would make professional players have to relearn some aspects of the game. Are you buds with some of these supposed pro players, is that where you've gotten this information from? I'd like to know. Because I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in order to make Starcraft 2 into the best e-sport possible, major changes are going to need to be made. Maybe not the changes mentioned in this thread, maybe not the changes anyone has ever speculated on this forum yet, but believe me, there is absolutely no way that SC2 in its current state will survive as the premier competitive videogame to drive e-sports into the spotlight.
Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again.
So basically, you're agreeing that Blizzard hasn't made a balanced game, and yet you're still arguing against changes that could potentially improve the game tenfold just because it's different than what it is now? So what is it that you actually want then? An unbalanced game that will forever remain in its current state? I don't understand.
-Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers.
Lore has nothing to do with it. What people mean by "it looks unnatural" is it's an absolute cluttered eyesore.
-Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
It doesn't make the game easier, and as many others have already explained in depth in this thread, it probably makes it even more difficult to control an army well, but gives overall even greater control if used properly. It's not about accepting the challenges we get. What kind of noble statement is that? Did you or anyone else say "we have to accept the challenges we get" when the 5 rax reaper rush came to light in TvZ? Did anyone say "we have to accept the challenges we get" when siege tanks killed literally everything, or marauders started out with concussive shell? No, people complained about it because it was something that actually was bad for the game. There's a difference between accepting challenges, and seeing that something is obviously not very good for the well-being of the game and wanting it changed.
I know not everyone has the same opinions and viewpoints on matters when it comes to how SC2 is and/or should be, but the people who want changes like this one are only wanting them for the good of the game. They aren't trying to relive BW nostalgia, they aren't trying to make the game easier, they are seeing an obvious flaw in their eyes and trying to mend it.
every morning i'm gonna wake up and bump this piece of shit till something in this game changes. I'm not gonna play your ball vs my ball for very much longer. I'm at the top of the player base and I can't see players being able to fight the game mechanics to reduce this effect. As it stands the units that benefit from clumping having such a stupid advantage they either are considered OP or have been nerfed into the ground.
Hi, I would like to share my opinion on this idea.
I've read some of your reaction and there is some point I'd like to discuss.
First of all, some people suggest that Blizzard will never do this kind of change to the game because it's too much work to rebalance everything accordingly ...We are talking about Blizzard, the compagny that have patch SCBW for 12 years.They work on the same game during 12 years ! There is no reason why "rebalancing the game" is too much of a task for them.
Also, the clumping, whatever his source in the code, have the consequence of making the battle shorter. This alone should justify the change. For this metagame, the way to increase the duration of game was to publish huges maps. I think we have escape the problem instead of solving it.
The beta was the sign that something was wrong. Every unit ( other that Marine, Zealot and Zergling and worker) that has return without changes from BW has been OP until some nerf. Siege tanks, HT with storm, Emp, etc. So the original balance was to have unit that doesn't clump.
Finally the last complain about micro ans strategy. I feel that my games shouldn't resolve around who have spread the most his army, but instead was a factor of who has flank, retreat, attack, snipe, surround, surprise the most that will be the winner. Because even if you spread your army, you still a-move your "spread army" before engaging. So there is more micro and awesome situation that await us.
I've seen IdrA Flank and surround marines with zergling and banelings. A pure Chef-d'oeuvre. But what i see from GOM.Tv is just very well controlled blob against very well controlled blob. The most interresseting part are the harass, because it's small army against everything. I would just love if the army part was as inspiring and entertaining as the harass.
In SC2BW ( the threat on TL.net in SC2 customs games), which consist of BW but with the graphic of SC2 ( the clumping isn't present), lies a video of a PvZ that have beautifull micro.
For supporting my post, i have buy SCBW. Yes i have buy SC2, then BW
There isn't a way to do this without making units move less efficiently, or without making hitboxes a lot larger than the units appear to be (which would just be confusing). I don't think this change is necessary. Players are figuring out how to spread their units naturally because it gives them an advantage (considering how crazy powerful splash damage is in SC2).
There are a lot of SC2 games now where the player who ends up winning key battles is the one who has the bigger concave, and I feel like because of this players will end up spreading their units even more than they do now. The only way that I feel like this change would contribute anything to the game is that it looks a little better for spectators when the units are moving across the map. But really, is it that important?
This would actually remove skill from the game in terms of unit spreading. It will only look more 'BW' like, and splash won't be as strong. I would rather have the game have mechanics that give advantages to spreading your units out in small hitsquads rather than just changing the pathing and have the same game except with spreaded out units.
On May 18 2011 07:15 Brief.Starcraft wrote: Can a map be made with this movement type? Is there anyone out there interested in making one so we can see how it works in practice?
Search "No Deathballs" on NA and I believe EU server, it's a custom map for Xel Naga and metal.
IIRC no deathballs just increased the radius of units. This just means less tightly packed balls, but it is still not the desired army movement we are looking for.
He's right. All it does is artificially make the units interaction radius without making them bigger. In other words, you can't clump if you want to, and you are forced to engage whilst spread.
On May 18 2011 19:13 Chaosvuistje wrote: This would actually remove skill from the game in terms of unit spreading. It will only look more 'BW' like, and splash won't be as strong. I would rather have the game have mechanics that give advantages to spreading your units out in small hitsquads rather than just changing the pathing and have the same game except with spreaded out units.
What you mean that no Brood War player ever management his army before engaging? That microing units that is closer togheter is harder than to micro units that is farther spread out?
Of course, it would have some effects to splash units and AoE spells, however how huge the effects are is extremly dependable on how you define the pathing.
*Edit* I can't see this being such a big change if it was implented into Sc2, but I don't think Blizzard will make a patch with such a huge change to their scripts (talking about the amount of time they would have to spend on new pathfinding), so I believe they will not change it unless they redeem it neccesaary for greater gameplay or such a reasoning.
I agree with that it would look better for Terran and Protoss (I kind of like the "swarminess" of the Swarm). However, this change would be massive to the game in terms of map design, area-effect/splash spells/weapons, etc.
I think it would be even better if players could control whether or not a unit avoided other units, or pushed them. That way there would be some level of critical thinking needed to determine which pathing state is better in a given situation.
Oh, and actually it is possible to spread out a group of units before hand in such a way that they will maintain their distance relative to each other while moving. However, depending on unit size, there is a limit to how big this arrangement can be.
One of the main issues with sc2's clumping is how badly it mitigates defender's advantage. Compare trying to run up a SCBW map with dragoons, where only one could fit at a time, to running up a SC2 ramp with stalkers. It's ridiculous.
Look at maps like Destination in SCBW, where the bridges give a HUGE defender's advantage, but with the ridiculous clumping in SC2, this wouldn't happen at all. Once you get this effect, then it opens up the game to much more macro/tech openings and also much more harassment, since you can defend with less units. Instead of just sitting your army in your base waiting to hit 200/200, you have to engage in a dance with your opponent around the map, preventing him from crossing any choke points and gaining any position, scouting where he's keeping his army and how he's moving it, etc.
And yet here you and others are, saying that it 100% wouldn't be reasonable to make any major changes to SC2 because it would make professional players have to relearn some aspects of the game. Are you buds with some of these supposed pro players, is that where you've gotten this information from? I'd like to know. Because I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in order to make Starcraft 2 into the best e-sport possible, major changes are going to need to be made. Maybe not the changes mentioned in this thread, maybe not the changes anyone has ever speculated on this forum yet, but believe me, there is absolutely no way that SC2 in its current state will survive as the premier competitive videogame to drive e-sports into the spotlight.
This already happens with the current balance changes, what you're talking about is a completely new game, or like turning ice hockey into roller hockey. The unit movement would only be the beginning, nearly every unit would have to be changed weather it would be damage, splash or speed etc. Basically you're asking everyone to just throw away all the work that has been put into SC2, and start over from the beginning. All to make SC2 look and feel more like BW, why not let SC2 develop as a different game?
I can just as easily ask you - when you say SC2 cannot survive in it's current state - where are you getting your information from!?! The fact is though, changes are on the way, and it is up to Blizzard to make them however they wish, and then it is up to the community to follow them or go in a different direction with a pro mod or a different game.
Well SC2 is still pretty new, so maybe a pro mod community will grow and become popular, or maybe Blizzard will include something like this in the next versions of the game. Well personally I hope this doesn't gain too much ground, because stability is also important for a sport, and more importantly for the industry that is supporting it. I really hope the community doesn't splinter off with a mod, I think there is a lot of spectator value in having the pros play the same game as the average joes
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote: Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments.
6 years ago in the NHL, there were some major rule changes that were brought about. Some of the changes were the removal of the two-line pass, the area behind the net being the only area past the goal line that a goaltender could play the puck, and most importantly the changes on goaltender's pad sizes, and an increase of four feet in each offensive zone, essentially changing the position of the blue lines and goal lines. This drastically changed many aspects of the game, and forced every professional hockey player to relearn things that they had known since playing in the league. And yet it still happened because, while debatable to the casual spectator, the league felt that it improved the quality of the game. And this was the NHL, something much grander than SC2 could ever dream of becoming. A league with players who had million dollar salaries.
And yet here you and others are, saying that it 100% wouldn't be reasonable to make any major changes to SC2 because it would make professional players have to relearn some aspects of the game. Are you buds with some of these supposed pro players, is that where you've gotten this information from? I'd like to know. Because I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in order to make Starcraft 2 into the best e-sport possible, major changes are going to need to be made. Maybe not the changes mentioned in this thread, maybe not the changes anyone has ever speculated on this forum yet, but believe me, there is absolutely no way that SC2 in its current state will survive as the premier competitive videogame to drive e-sports into the spotlight.
Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again.
So basically, you're agreeing that Blizzard hasn't made a balanced game, and yet you're still arguing against changes that could potentially improve the game tenfold just because it's different than what it is now? So what is it that you actually want then? An unbalanced game that will forever remain in its current state? I don't understand.
-Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers.
-Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
It doesn't make the game easier, and as many others have already explained in depth in this thread, it probably makes it even more difficult to control an army well, but gives overall even greater control if used properly. It's not about accepting the challenges we get. What kind of noble statement is that? Did you or anyone else say "we have to accept the challenges we get" when the 5 rax reaper rush came to light in TvZ? Did anyone say "we have to accept the challenges we get" when siege tanks killed literally everything, or marauders started out with concussive shell? No, people complained about it because it was something that actually was bad for the game. There's a difference between accepting challenges, and seeing that something is obviously not very good for the well-being of the game and wanting it changed.
I know not everyone has the same opinions and viewpoints on matters when it comes to how SC2 is and/or should be, but the people who want changes like this one are only wanting them for the good of the game. They aren't trying to relive BW nostalgia, they aren't trying to make the game easier, they are seeing an obvious flaw in their eyes and trying to mend it.
I was going to make the same reference to the changes in the NHL but your post explored that idea very nicely. The rule changes really changed how the game was played and this was with million dollar salaries.
Whether these changes are the correct ones, I'm not too sure. But I can agree that watching 15-20 minutes of massing with very minor attacks (harass to slow down his mass) into a ball vs ball that lasts 15 seconds where everything dies to AoE isn't enjoyable at all to play nor watch.
I understand it's not necessarily feasible, but I can only imagine positive effects on the skill cap, legitimacy and spectator experience of SC2 from this.
On May 19 2011 01:09 Razith wrote: Whether these changes are the correct ones, I'm not too sure. But I can agree that watching 15-20 minutes of massing with very minor attacks (harass to slow down his mass) into a ball vs ball that lasts 15 seconds where everything dies to AoE isn't enjoyable at all to play nor watch.
I would love this change, but I wouldn't hold your breath for blizzard to completely redesign unit relationships and game balance at this point. Browder and co. seem relatively happy with the game they made as far as I can tell.
On May 18 2011 18:37 Schtroumpfs wrote:
...We are talking about Blizzard, the compagny that have patch SCBW for 12 years.They work on the same game during 12 years ! There is no reason why "rebalancing the game" is too much of a task for them.
Please look things up before perpetuating this myth. The last Brood War balance patch was in 2001... Brood War did not take "12 years of tweaks" to be relatively balanced to the point where people could overcome things through refinement in their own gameplay.
At best they will add some more space between bigger units. Adding the whole "units blocking eachother" that BW and WC3 had i really don't think they want to add again.
Some of the most retarded stuff happens in BW due to this mechanic. Just look at dragoons trying to walk around anything really, they are stupid and their huge hitboxes makes their pathing complete crap.
Even though this idea would really make groups of units look much more realistic, what makes people think Blizzard would listen to the community in a such game changing matter? I'd really like to believe they would think about implementing this but seriously i don't see it happening, if ever, only after some expansion, and A LOT, of noise by the community, and most certainly in their forums, not here.
With all the tournaments coming up, SC2 for now would probably lose more than win with this, since stability is probably more needed than a more realistic setting but with some new imbalance situations coming along.
You're making the comparison to BW, but in BW units clumped together as well.
Micro in that game as well as not having a whole 200/200 army together at all times is what made the units not stay in such a ball. Marine split to avoid lurker splash. Zealot spreading to breach a tank line to avoid splash. Vultures moved to defend several parts of a siege line instead of all being pushed to one direction.
This happened in BW as well, the players knew a ball formation would hurt them, so they used micro to fix that.
It's hard to see balance implications as a legitimate reason not to do something when non-trivial balance changes are attached to each patch and two expansions are on the way. Blizzard doesn't see SC2's balance state as calcified, and if they decided that an overhaul to unit pathing would improve the game, they'd package it in with HOTS and spend a long open beta rebalancing each and every unit as needed.
The thing is that SC2's movement algorithms were designed with ease of use in mind, not pro level play or the spectator experience. And at making a Starcraft that's less frustrating to play than the original, Blizzard was successful. Perhaps there will be tweaks in the right direction, but a complete reversion back to the old way is doubtful just because accessibility will always be a primary design goal for Blizzard.
(As an aside, I've always wondered if the current AI was first made for zerglings specifically and then applied to everything. Zergling swarms move rather beautifully in Starcraft 2 given their speed and numbers, like schools of fish. And from both a design and flavor standpoint it makes sense for groups of zerglings to behave like one unit. But applied to entire armies with diverse compositions it's a bit of a mess visually and micro often feels like trying to dig a hole in loose sand.)
On May 19 2011 07:14 Rococo wrote: The thing is that SC2's movement algorithms were designed with ease of use in mind, not pro level play or the spectator experience. And at making a Starcraft that's less frustrating to play than the original, Blizzard was successful. Perhaps there will be tweaks in the right direction, but a complete reversion back to the old way is doubtful just because accessibility will always be a primary design goal for Blizzard.
We aren't going back to the old, Brood War, way. Units will still be easy to control and not run around in random directions, they'll just spread out more naturally because they'll see each other. Currently, units just run one another over. Quite rude if you ask me.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
[/quote] What's getting tiresome are the comparison's to BW. Did BW have stronger marines? Did BW have reactors to mass produce them faster? Was broodwar this fast-paced? BW analogies only work sometimes and not here.
I really would love to see this get a lot more attention. This fix would potentially be the most dramatic change for the better we could possibly expect to see.
You're making the comparison to BW, but in BW units clumped together as well.
Micro in that game as well as not having a whole 200/200 army together at all times is what made the units not stay in such a ball. Marine split to avoid lurker splash. Zealot spreading to breach a tank line to avoid splash. Vultures moved to defend several parts of a siege line instead of all being pushed to one direction.
This happened in BW as well, the players knew a ball formation would hurt them, so they used micro to fix that.
The spread-it-out is mainly a side effect of what the OP is talking about though. Atm in SC2 units are "smart": control groups will move together, units get out of each other's way (and stay out of the way of workers building things, at least sometimes). BW as far as I can tell unit AI was much more individualized (and therefore "dumb").
The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be to have some kind of toggle where a control group could have either an (organized) "formation" (cf AoEII) or be every unit for itself (BW). The current SC2 "blob-'formation'-as-default" is close to the worst possible, aesthetically speaking. I suppose my hypothetical toggle could have a 3rd "blob" setting since that's important for some compositions (at least at the moment), but I don't think any significant portion of the serious community (I have no idea about the "average gamer") actually likes it.
Whether it's worth it/possible to/actually going to happen that change is made is a different question, of course.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
What's getting tiresome are the comparison's to BW. Did BW have stronger marines? Did BW have reactors to mass produce them faster? Was broodwar this fast-paced? BW analogies only work sometimes and not here.
increase baneling splash radius if it becomes a problem
dang that was hard to fix
also, guess one of the biggest reasons why marines are stronger and have higher DPS in SC2? that's right, the whole point behind this thread.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.What's getting tiresome are the comparison's to BW. Did BW have stronger marines? Did BW have reactors to mass produce them faster? Was broodwar this fast-paced? BW analogies only work sometimes and not here.
neither one is really "stronger" , one has higher attacks per second while the other has more hp and they kill each other at the same rate.
You wouldn't want to clump vs lurkers, while you would vs zerglings, but the lurker would always strike one target while a baneling may or may not even hit one. Without the autoclumping feature, it would make the marines easier to kill early in the game and the zerglings would last a tiny bit longer. Splash damage units don't kill masses of banelings/zerglings as well as it would though in the later stages into the game.
This change would make the battles longer and more create more games with more multi pronged attacks instead of just rolling over the opponent immediately in some situations. More games with micro all over the map would be really cool...
Making splash radius increases, etc. is equivalent to balancing the game around larger maps compared to the previous smaller maps. Its a necessary step to make the game good.
On May 18 2011 17:54 FliedLice wrote: Sooo.. Wouldn't De-clumping the units mannualy be one of those awesome testaments of a players skill everybody cheered about in Broodwar and cried about when they were missing in SC2?
These are pretty much my thoughts regarding this matter. Look at different ways of controlling your army to spread it out more if desired. Using more control groups would be helpful. There is so much more that could be done micro-wise at the moment. Don't be trapped in the past.
The ideal situation, to me, would be to have units spread a little more than they do now (though less than this) but for control groups to remember their formations as they move.
That way you could pre-arrange a spread or ball depending on the situation, and then move command and have your units retain that. Both would take apm to set up and adjust, but would not require 1000% babysitting during every move command. "Digging a hole in the sand" is a really apt analogy for how it is right now.
The one thing we can't afford to do is make it impossible to clump units when the player wants it. This mod does that, and so you really need a more sophisticated solution.
EDIT:
On May 19 2011 12:11 Toastmold wrote: These are pretty much my thoughts regarding this matter. Look at different ways of controlling your army to spread it out more if desired. Using more control groups would be helpful. There is so much more that could be done micro-wise at the moment. Don't be trapped in the past.
There's definitely more we can do, but the tools we have in this game are just not as effective for this kind of thing as the tools in brood war. In BW you had to fight the spread most of the time, whereas here we have to fight the ball, and the SC2 pathing is just so absurdly good at creating balls no matter what we do that fighting it is almost futile, or takes so much attention it's detrimental to the rest of your game.
On May 19 2011 11:38 mikeymoo wrote: I would consider buying sc2 if this change was implemented.
I would as well. Unfortunately it looks like Blizz wants the game to be kept this way because they want it to be centered around large clusters of units and for the other reasons probably mentioned already. :[
If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
You really think the people on SOTG would agree with this? This is something to distinguish pros from noobs. Unit spreading. As the post "The elephant in the room" pointed out, pros are really really bad. Thye make mistakes like not microing 3 drops well harassint a protoss deathball that must defend the front. Pros need to get better, and since jaedong is a real person, eventually itmwill be possible for a pro to split hisunits on demand all the time. Its like ultimate marine splittingnall the time. This thread is worse than a balance discussion, its a mechanics disucussion. How much theorycraft do we get..
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
You really think the people on SOTG would agree with this? This is something to distinguish pros from noobs. Unit spreading. As the post "The elephant in the room" pointed out, pros are really really bad. Thye make mistakes like not microing 3 drops well harassint a protoss deathball that must defend the front. Pros need to get better, and since jaedong is a real person, eventually itmwill be possible for a pro to split hisunits on demand all the time. Its like ultimate marine splittingnall the time. This thread is worse than a balance discussion, its a mechanics disucussion. How much theorycraft do we get..
You are misunderstanding the implication of dynamic unit movement. Your units will be spread out and you have work to get them into a closer formation. That is the right way of looking at it and the intention isnt to make the Terrans life easier against Banelings, but rather to prevent "tight deathballs" from being too automatic because the units drift apart when they are moving.
Tight balls of units simply have too high dps and pose a problem for balancing. This could help with balancing AND it would make the game look more natural.
It is also not true that it would remove micro, because it would just switch it from "micro to split" to "micro to a dense attack formation". The first is only needed against Banelings, but the second is needed for EVERYTHING, so it would require even more micro. Area attacks could simply be adjusted to have the same effect as they are having now on the spread out units and thus they would be even more dangerous on tighter balls of units ... which is a good thing. At least Siege Tanks and Psi Storm seem less than imposing right now ...
Possibly its already been mentioned, but the biggest change I notice is the change in the position of the Ultras from the back of the pack to the front. The inability of large units like ultras to get in range would probably be helped quite a bit by this.
I'm concerned with the overall mentality to the younger, more naive sc2 community. The simple notion that the game is great and its the players who aren't executing well enough mechanically as the issue is unreal.
Micro often is so simplified and battles end so quickly because add in some splash and high dps and giant balls of units just die. When you have a battle spreading 2 screen lengths and have to control so many more units effectively its far more mechanically demanding.
To put it in perspective: I am getting attack, I drag select everything and pull back to avoid a storm then a-move forward to win. That's just a poor, simplified, newbie friendly design. Compare that to where your units are all over and you have to rely on your own intervention to increase effective dps now you have a higher skill ceiling.
If you wanna convince me unit spread similar to bw would be frowned upon by the likes of nony, day9, and incontrol in favour of the blob format seen currently you're smokin somethin. In fact, I'd say that's reason enough to bring the issue up on the show because your insinuation that clumped up units are in some way better and that people, especially pros, would never want to let go of such a mechanic because people just need to play better is really just short sighted.
Watch replays, the bulk of most peoples' armies is one ctrl group. So while I can agree people can always get better, its a combination of people needing to get better AND poor game design that leave improvement on both ends of the spectrum. I don't care if people can get good enough to split perfectly because it still doesn't change the fact that the current design is poor and poorly implemented.
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
You really think the people on SOTG would agree with this?
I'd think so yeah. Or at the very least they can discuss the pros and cons of it in a civil, intelligent manner rather than the way most of this thread is going with people arguing against it with the uninformed reasons of "Its not BW stop being nostalgic!!!" or "there's way more skill involved to split units when they ball up!!!"
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
You really think the people on SOTG would agree with this?
I'd think so yeah. Or at the very least they can discuss the pros and cons of it in a civil, intelligent manner rather than the way most of this thread is going with people arguing against it with the uninformed reasons of "Its not BW stop being nostalgic!!!" or "there's way more skill involved to split units when they ball up!!!"
Unfortunately I'm more skeptical of that. As much as I'd like for the notable TL names to propose this change, I imagine that instead most of them would refuse under the notion of "SC2 is too young", and "It took BW 10 years blahblahblah" and all the usual flawed arguments we get when SC2 is portrayed as anything other than absolute perfection from us "evil BW elitists". I'd love to be wrong and all, but I'm not too optimistic.
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
You really think the people on SOTG would agree with this?
I'd think so yeah. Or at the very least they can discuss the pros and cons of it in a civil, intelligent manner rather than the way most of this thread is going with people arguing against it with the uninformed reasons of "Its not BW stop being nostalgic!!!" or "there's way more skill involved to split units when they ball up!!!"
Unfortunately I'm more skeptical of that. As much as I'd like for the notable TL names to propose this change, I imagine that instead most of them would refuse under the notion of "SC2 is too young", and "It took BW 10 years blahblahblah" and all the usual flawed arguments we get when SC2 is portrayed as anything other than absolute perfection from us "evil BW elitists". I'd love to be wrong and all, but I'm not too optimistic.
From most SC2 shows I'm sure that would definitely be the response, since nobody in the scene wants to cast SC2 in a negative light for fear of looking bad themselves. HOWEVER, if anyone would get behind this idea at all I think SotG would be the best chance because they are definitely the most unfiltered when it comes to talking about what they think is good and bad about the game and the scene. Not entirely sure but who knows, here's hoping.
On May 19 2011 13:41 GoKu` wrote: I personally hate the dynamic movement PURELY because it makes ghost EMPing nearly impossible if the ghost is in the blob of your army.
It also makes the templar you are EMPing a lot harder to use....
On May 19 2011 13:41 GoKu` wrote: I personally hate the dynamic movement PURELY because it makes ghost EMPing nearly impossible if the ghost is in the blob of your army.
It also makes the templar you are EMPing a lot harder to use....
Hasnt it been stated enough times already that a change to SC2 to include this would REQUIRE an adjustment to all area effects? I mean c'mon, how hard is it to come to that conclusion?
I've been complaining about this since the first time I've played sc2. It just seems so unnatural to me. Just look at those pictures with the units spread out, they look so much more natural and cooler. Really hope blizzard looks into this and possibly implement a change.
Because of the auto-ball pathing, the race with the most powerful AoE will always have the most powerful 200/200 army. Think about it: why is the Colossus so good? Units just align themselves naturally with its splash radius. Same with HTs. That's why toss is so good late game. Same thing to a lesser extent with terran Siege Tanks and vP Ghosts work the same way. Their damage is always maximized because units just like to cluster up so much. That's also why zerg seems so much weaker: they don't really have a dominant AoE unit so they can't exploit the game's natural mechanics for army positioning as much.
I'll throw my chips down with this as well. of everything that is different between SC2 and BW, this is the one thing I most want reverted. The tight deathballs are horrible on every level.
- Viewers get less of a show, this is the main thing keeping BW way ahead of SC2 in terms of a spectator sport. - Aoe has been nerfed so it is no longer the spectacle it was in BW when an AOE cleared out a pack of units - less micro needed overall to achiev perfect firing arcs, meaning perfect arcs are then required for a fight. With dynamic movement there is a LOT larger range of possible unit effectiveness due to positioning.
On May 19 2011 07:14 Rococo wrote: The thing is that SC2's movement algorithms were designed with ease of use in mind, not pro level play or the spectator experience. And at making a Starcraft that's less frustrating to play than the original, Blizzard was successful. Perhaps there will be tweaks in the right direction, but a complete reversion back to the old way is doubtful just because accessibility will always be a primary design goal for Blizzard.
We aren't going back to the old, Brood War, way. Units will still be easy to control and not run around in random directions, they'll just spread out more naturally because they'll see each other. Currently, units just run one another over. Quite rude if you ask me.
On May 19 2011 07:14 Rococo wrote: It's hard to see balance implications as a legitimate reason not to do something when non-trivial balance changes are attached to each patch and two expansions are on the way. Blizzard doesn't see SC2's balance state as calcified, and if they decided that an overhaul to unit pathing would improve the game, they'd package it in with HOTS and spend a long open beta rebalancing each and every unit as needed.
The thing is that SC2's movement algorithms were designed with ease of use in mind, not pro level play or the spectator experience. And at making a Starcraft that's less frustrating to play than the original, Blizzard was successful. Perhaps there will be tweaks in the right direction, but a complete reversion back to the old way is doubtful just because accessibility will always be a primary design goal for Blizzard.
(As an aside, I've always wondered if the current AI was first made for zerglings specifically and then applied to everything. Zergling swarms move rather beautifully in Starcraft 2 given their speed and numbers, like schools of fish. And from both a design and flavor standpoint it makes sense for groups of zerglings to behave like one unit. But applied to entire armies with diverse compositions it's a bit of a mess visually and micro often feels like trying to dig a hole in loose sand.)
ETC ETC ETC
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE SAID! UNITS WON'T GET STUCK LIKE IN BW NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE OF STEERING BEHAVIOUR!
However you will still have the pros of unit spreading. No unit will ever behave like large units in starcraft that glitched out because of how big they were e.g Tank, Dragoon, Goliath.
THIS TYPE OF MOVEMENT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER GAMES (E.G COMPANY OF HEROES HAS PERFECT NAVIGATION WITH NATURAL PATHING)
Blizzard simply did their movement AI very poorly. Obviously we don't want it exactly like CoH because you can only control squads, but in between what is in CoH and BW.
On May 19 2011 13:41 GoKu` wrote: I personally hate the dynamic movement PURELY because it makes ghost EMPing nearly impossible if the ghost is in the blob of your army.
It also makes the templar you are EMPing a lot harder to use....
Templar stay in the back and therefore are protected by your army, your ghost have to be in the front (not protected by your army lol) It just makes things really hard to emp and still keep your ghost alive because they are very easy to snipe off after a emp
I wish I had enough BW/SC2 experience to understand how much this changes gameplay and what all it would effect, but it certainly looks promising and I think it would improve spectating as well. I would like to see this tried out more and hear some SotG opinions on this.
I would love to hear the intent from blizzard not implementing this from the beginning.
While I would love to see this change, I'm going to have to agree that its going to be difficult to implement, seeing as the -entire- game would have to be readjusted.
Imagine ghosts and templar having to do more than just spam one click area instead of aiming at multiple locations. Ut oh..skill ceiling. I always knew clumping was a problem, but didn't really know a good solution to recommend. Now that it is here, this issue really needs to be pushed and people need to stop beating around the bush that it will make the game better in significantly more ways than clump units do.
On May 19 2011 14:58 Brief.Starcraft wrote: I also really want to see SotG touch on this. Would be interesting to hear their opinions, for sure.
I just emailed SotG about this. Honestly I think it would be one of the BEST things for sc2 and I really want to get blizzard's attention about this one. It's not too late to make this change. All we need is publicity and getting some attention and this CAN happen.
On May 19 2011 13:41 GoKu` wrote: I personally hate the dynamic movement PURELY because it makes ghost EMPing nearly impossible if the ghost is in the blob of your army.
It also makes the templar you are EMPing a lot harder to use....
Hasnt it been stated enough times already that a change to SC2 to include this would REQUIRE an adjustment to all area effects? I mean c'mon, how hard is it to come to that conclusion?
It seems that not all people are strong in the reflection department, I agree (note: not aiming this at anyone specific) <3
Anyways, I really love this ''new'' idea. I feel SC2 has some poor designs, designed to make the game easier for normal players, but might also make competitive play less dynamic = less fun, imo.
On May 19 2011 12:31 Alizee- wrote: If everyone makes enough noise about this I can very easily see this being implemented. Get big names on board, get it discussed in state of the game/inside the game and I bet it can happen quite easily. Its far from an impossible change and HotS isn't that far off.
Just make more noise.
Its like ultimate marine splittingnall the time. This thread is worse than a balance discussion, its a mechanics disucussion. How much theorycraft do we get..
It's a design discussion, which should be very legitimate. It makes no sense whatsoever to have 500 APM and spend half of it keeping your units apart while moving across the map. This is an example of repetitive, extraneous APM that should not be part of any game.
BW's micro for the most part was very dynamic because of the magic boxes and the way it was designed...yes, things bugged out, but other than that, micro was not mostly about spreading your units but making use of terrain, chokes, focus firing etc. to gain an advantage.
When you see boxer's famous marine micro vs lurker ling, you can see the way he abuses the timing required to burrow to snipe them and reposition, having medics block melee units, moving behind minerals and zerg buildings to create artificial chokes...that was tactical genius that stemmed from snap decisions. It's far better to watch that having to manually separate your units one by one and calling it "micro".
On May 17 2011 10:26 WinteRR wrote: K3ny, I think you misinterpreted my post (or I didn't construe it with too much care ).
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)
Actually the old also did around 35 damage to some types of units, you see, the damage of the siege tank in BW is explosive, explosive damage does 50% to small units, 75% to medium units, and 100% to large units (iirc), one of the only differences being that it dealt 70 damage to protoss shields.
Unless Blizzard has a way to implement this without losing the natural feel and the instant response of the current pathfinding, it's not going to work.
I've played no deathball map and it just isn't as fun as with the new pathfinding. Units don't get into range properly, and if this pathfinding is to be taken place, a HUGE amount of balancing will need to be tweaked.
The problem isn't just AoE, the problem is range. With the balls getting much wider, only smaller parts of a previous "ball" can get into range of firing.
Then you need to tweak other things such as range of casting, your templars would be far behind the regular troops to even have casting be a useful aspect of the game.
I think a few small tweaks can and probably will be done in HotS to increase the readability of the game but actually playing the game with big and wide units makes it not feel right.
To reiterate my points: The roach for instance no longer feels like a very microable unit. You can't run right in, snipe a stalker, keep running because they now have to keep a wide gap.
I think what the best solution for the future is somehow have units naturally band out like that and have some kind of magic box similar to BW.
On May 19 2011 18:32 wankey wrote: Unless Blizzard has a way to implement this without losing the natural feel and the instant response of the current pathfinding, it's not going to work.
I've played no deathball map and it just isn't as fun as with the new pathfinding. Units don't get into range properly, and if this pathfinding is to be taken place, a HUGE amount of balancing will need to be tweaked.
The problem isn't just AoE, the problem is range. With the balls getting much wider, only smaller parts of a previous "ball" can get into range of firing.
Then you need to tweak other things such as range of casting, your templars would be far behind the regular troops to even have casting be a useful aspect of the game.
I think a few small tweaks can and probably will be done in HotS to increase the readability of the game but actually playing the game with big and wide units makes it not feel right.
To reiterate my points: The roach for instance no longer feels like a very microable unit. You can't run right in, snipe a stalker, keep running because they now have to keep a wide gap.
I think what the best solution for the future is somehow have units naturally band out like that and have some kind of magic box similar to BW.
I've tried that "no deathball" map myself and it doesn't illustrate what dynamic movement is talking about. The map basically just makes it so that units auto-spread, dynamic movement doesn't make units auto-spread it makes it so that when you move command, units move in relation to how they are originally positioned in the army i.e. they don't clump up. With dynamic movement you can clump them up if you want to, but on that map it doesn't really allow that I notice i.e. it doesn't demonstrate dynamic movement very well.
It would be nice if a good map-maker could make a map with dynamic movement that properly illustrates what the OP is suggesting.
On May 17 2011 16:07 IzieBoy wrote: if they were to implement like spread formation that are in games like caesar and so on... then the gap at the pro scene would be even smaller... it takes a bit of micro to spread your marines... if there was a hotkey to spread them all out at once... that's just well... idk
you did mention something similar to what i was musing about:
what if you have a bunch of fast units pushing a slow unit somehow...
i know that you can technically push a warping archon around... it would be so cool to push ghosts that are nuking away from the spot lol... i doubt it would work though...they seem quite glued in place
You're thinking about this in the completely wrong way.
Yes this change would make Unit X vs Baneling easier to micro.
However it would make practically all other engagements tougher to micro since it would make it more challenging to consolidate your army for maximum output.
This change would be good as I feel right now SC2 unit AI as well as the infinite control groups is one of the biggest issues the game has.
Trust me if BW players could move around with a deathball as large, smart and mobile as the ones we have in SC2 then they would be A-moving around the map as much as we do.
Also think this would be better for spectators as right now large battles are usually the least interesting ones.
lol
many different formations: you can have an option to have normal AI pathing too
I support this . But I don't think Blizzard 'll make massive changes like these to improve the game, why? because they'll have to re balance lot of stuff and for the record, SC2 balance team loves to simplify mechanic ( also remove fun factor) in order to balance the game rather than make it more fun and dynamic, i.e : Remove Khaydarin Amulet, fix Vortex...
Yes, these things were kind of buggy but still because of them, the game was more dymanic. There were lot of way to fix it and keep SC2 fun to play/watch which it should be but Blizzard just nerf'ed them into oblivion instead.
So we can tell, Blizzard don't want to put effort to make the game complicated but more depth than it is now, their main target right now is to keep 50% win rate to all races in any leagues/tournaments. Maybe SC2 won't become a shalow/boring but balanced game If they keep "polishing" it this way, IDK. But I don't think they'll make this kind of massive changes anytime soon either.
lol i miss total annihilation and supreme commander 2
it was fun, but sc2 has better looking units... (ie larger)
i also like the unit cap... a game without micro is kinda boring in the end.
EDIT: many other games have unit speed as well as clumping...total annihilation-style games were notorious for making things clumped...(e.g. when units die they leave a metal corpse which block the way of the units behind XD)
the more units a game allows...the worse it is for competitive sports (because units are just too much to look at)..but variety and depth of each unit is a big plus
so it's not necessarily splitting micro...it's just that there's way too many marines...and either blizz implements a command like "split" on the panel that has "attack-move" and "patrol" or somehow reduce the number of marines needed (which would be cool but probably won't happen)
too bad for marines who wish to be templars...marine+marine = mariarchon? marchon? marnon?
if marine count can be reduced...then cool units like archons and ultralisks would actually mean something other than as FF breakers...
On May 19 2011 15:07 Alizee- wrote: Imagine ghosts and templar having to do more than just spam one click area instead of aiming at multiple locations. Ut oh..skill ceiling. I always knew clumping was a problem, but didn't really know a good solution to recommend. Now that it is here, this issue really needs to be pushed and people need to stop beating around the bush that it will make the game better in significantly more ways than clump units do.
That's another good point. Currently all you have to do between spams of spells is just slightly move your mouse to one side and you'll get a good coverage of an entire army. With this it'd take a lot more aiming of spells in which areas of the screen you want it to go to get the maximum amount of units hit, rather than knowing for sure you're gonna cover his entire army regardless.
I really hope people keep pushing this change, it's something that can only be good for the game.
On May 19 2011 17:05 sluggaslamoo wrote: I'd also rather a fun imbalanced game, than a boring balanced game.
No you wouldn't lol, what do you hear more of? Complaining about balance, or complaining about the lack of fun the games present?
Well most people do complain about balance, but I bet there are plenty of people that would make the case SC2 is isn't as fun as it could be. There just isn't a lot of discussion about that though.
On May 19 2011 17:05 sluggaslamoo wrote: I'd also rather a fun imbalanced game, than a boring balanced game.
No you wouldn't lol, what do you hear more of? Complaining about balance, or complaining about the lack of fun the games present?
Well most people do complain about balance, but I bet there are plenty of people that would make the case SC2 is isn't as fun as it could be. There just isn't a lot of discussion about that though.
definitely not as fun as it could be. It's become sorta dull. And when I watch pros, it feels like i'm watching regular diamond players play. I know they're way better but you can't really tell visually without opening up tabs. There is no care as to how an army is spread. Everyones ballin.
Loved the article. I truly support this! Would be amazing if Blizzard cared enough about esports and the spectators to make this drastic change to the game. Read it while listening to SotG. High Thread represent.
I think it might be cool, but I honestly think some units would need to be reworked. A siege tank dealing 35 damage to a light unit under this paradigm would just seem, well, useless. I'm sure there are other examples, but this is the first to come to mind.
This change will make game look more "natural" I think. Maybe it seems so because I used to play BW and the way units moved in BW is considered to be "natural" and "true" for me now. Anyway I think this change is the key to longer, massive battles without unbeatable "blobs" - that would be the turning point of SC2. To those people who say this change is impossible due to eventual need in rebalancing the game again: consider the fact that Blizzard is going to add new units for each race with upcoming addon and new units will surely affect overall balance that will require to be fixed over and over again. So, why not make such a big and crucial change taking into account that SC2 a young game and is being constantly developed = evolving: new units + new movement mechanics -> new balance -> better game? Noone can image how the game is going to look after (HoS + 1,5 years of pathes) + (LoV + 1,5 years of pathes). Its going to be 2015 or 2016 when we see the final game. I support!
This is awesome. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already but another massive effect this has is that an army in a great defensive position suddenly becomes a lot stronger which means players could not only afford to split their units up, but they would be severely disadvantaged for not doing so.
On May 22 2011 03:51 ETisME wrote: that is going to affect too many things I suppose, especially point 3.
being less "bulked up" for example would give lings a much better surround of most units.
reducing splash damage would greatly reduce the power of siege tanks and banelings and all other AoE dmg dealer.
Not saying it cannot be done but it will need a huge amount of balance to fix that
but that being said, some units, especially ultralisks, need a better pathing.
Tweaking the splash radius of units and other things like that are such a simple balance tweak though, it's not like that's the main reason deterring them from doing this.
On May 21 2011 20:31 althaz wrote: This is awesome. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already but another massive effect this has is that an army in a great defensive position suddenly becomes a lot stronger which means players could not only afford to split their units up, but they would be severely disadvantaged for not doing so.
Exactly. Think how many more battles you see going on all over the map in a standard BW match compared to SC2. It's so much more exciting to see, and the fact that a player can defend positions and engage armies without his entire army is the key reason as to why it's allowed to happen.
Conceptually, the idea is pretty good, however - 1. Blizzard won't make this change 2. People are already used to playing in this manner - > there is already a skill differential between people, consisting in how effective/fast/accurate they perform splits. This aspect is quite beneficial to the game, IMO.
On May 17 2011 12:02 Superiorwolf wrote: 1. Very aesthetically pleasing 2. Makes the game much more fun, as AOE will once again become buffed in order to compensate 3. Battles last longer 4. Melee units no longer are useless vs ranged units 5. You will more often (as in BW) see many battles around the map simultaneously, creates for a more effective spectator experience
The one legitimate worry I think that someone posted is that moving up ramps will again be very annoying, but I think with SC2 engine it will not be so difficult as it was in Broodwar.
I would love to see this change implemented for HotS.
I agree with every point here. I also think moving up ramps will be fine since the engine will most likely compensate for it and the AI isn't extremely silly. Hopefully blizzard look at this.
On May 22 2011 21:21 Vei wrote: imagine instead of having to split your marines you just had to press a button that made them split like the second image
obviously baneling splash will be increased to compensate
On May 22 2011 21:21 Vei wrote: imagine instead of having to split your marines you just had to press a button that made them split like the second image
Imagine instead of marines killing an absurd amount of lings, if you could catch marines off guard and kill three times as many marines.
Imagine if making banelings didn't mean eating up more gas than 10,000 SUV's.
signed the petition. and really, I feel like in all the talk of micro, people forget what I think would be the biggest effect of this:
making map terrain actually matter.
When I first started watching the Day9Dailies, I remember Sean going into some hardcore analysis regarding the double bridges at Destination. Now, this was shortly after learning that it's bad to queue units, so I was crazy noob when I watched these early dailies. But watching a game where some seemingly arbitrary terrain feature becomes such a ridiculously important point surrounding practically every offensive movement.
As it currently stands, you can jam just about any amount of units (not counting the thor) through any "constricting" SC2 terrain just about as fast as you would in an open field. The only things that can actually slow down an SC2 army is force fields and fungal growths. But small paths that would make a batallion of BW tanks and infantry take ages to move through provide absolutely no hindrance because everything moves so damned nimbly that terrain doesn't really matter much anymore.
It seems like right now, the only thing that matters are constricted areas that leave one army unable to spread into a concave. But if you look at something like Peaks of Baekdu and compare it to Crossfire SE, you look at the Baekdu ramps and say, "damn, it's going to take a serious amount of time to funnel all my dragoons/tanks/hydras/whatever through those ramps. I better not get caught off guard". On Crossfire, you see the ramps and say, "well, it's just a hop skip and a jump back home no matter where I decide to siege up, ramps aren't going to hinder my movement!".
This probably isn't very well-worded, but I haven't slept yet and it's 6 in the morning. I just keep on getting so depressed when I see new maps try cool new terrain features that would be an incredibly important focal point in a BW match. In SC2, though, they barely ever have the monstrous effects that they otherwise could.
EDIT: I completely forgot! Is there an actual mod that people have made to play like this? I've seen the "No Deathball" map before, but I would love to play some custom games with this sort of mechanic to be able to actually try it out.
Honestly, we need to make this happen for HotS. I never played broodwar aside from the campaign, and I cannot see how this would be a bad thing.
Better asthetically, adds more micro into the game. What exactly is the negative point to it? I mean sure it messes with balance, but the expansion was going to anyway.
On May 22 2011 21:09 n0ise wrote:1. Blizzard won't make this change
Blizzard says they want SC2 to be a major e-sport, presumably one that succeeds BW in Korea and brings e-sports to a wide global audience. If they really do want that, I think there's a chance they might.
People are already used to playing in this manner - > there is already a skill differential between people, consisting in how effective/fast/accurate they perform splits. This aspect is quite beneficial to the game, IMO.
The need to spread units apart quickly to mitigate AoE damage isn't some kind of innovation of SC2. It's a standard part of unit control that will always be present so long as there are AoE attacks. Units would still clump through chokes and while attacking, and players would still need to split them up in response to banelings and so forth. (It's a question of balance whether banelings would still necessitate a splitting response.)
Wouldn't it be cool if ones Heart of the Swarm is out, they would make this change to Wings of Liberty? If people like it, then maybe it would be added to HoTS and so on.
Wouldn't the units just clump up again once battle starts? With every unit trying to get into range and whatnot?
I think so too, because if that doesn't happen the battles will be like 4 marines shooting at 4 marines, if in a choke...
How does a change like this add micro? Slowing down battles makes it easier to micro right? They would have to change the game to a very great extent and since there are players like me, who have no experience in BW, it would be like learning a new game.
On May 29 2011 21:58 alepov wrote: interesting OP =) one specific question, how would you make banelings useful again if this was implemented?
the same way storms, fungal growth, tanks, archons, seeker missile and colossi would be made useful again.
all AoE effects in the entire game would be heavily buffed to have their radius be a lot bigger. result: AoE is more dangerous in highly clumped up situations. (this is a good thing, this would make spectating battles much more exciting) AoE works just the same as always (perhaps slightly nerfed) in other situations.
Wouldn't the units just clump up again once battle starts? With every unit trying to get into range and whatnot?
I think so too, because if that doesn't happen the battles will be like 4 marines shooting at 4 marines, if in a choke...
How does a change like this add micro? Slowing down battles makes it easier to micro right? They would have to change the game to a very great extent and since there are players like me, who have no experience in BW, it would be like learning a new game.
because of the buffed splash explained earlier, you would need to micro against it to reduce its effectiveness.
also, those that do not have a background of broodwar may not find this intuitive but: if you have a massive army, terrain actually matters. movement through a choke would no longer take 2-4 seconds, it would take 15-20 seconds (this is not an overestimate). now imagine if the entirety of the opponents army gets to fight a trickle of your army, the result would be devestating. the aspect of fighting on the move would be extremely changed, tanks with good position would have their effectiveness at least tripled, drops and nydus worms would become relevant factors since they let you ignore terrain, fungal growth and forcefields would be able to easily constrict movement even in seemingly open terrain, battles would look much more epic since the visual size of armies would be tripled or quadroupled, a storm on one spot on the opponent could very well deal many times the damage that it would on another spot, the opponent would actually have to attempt to dodge these more powerful storms, ultralisks would no longer look ridicolously big and would be a much smaller issue regarding AI and A-moved blobs would become much weaker since the "tail" of the army would arrive much much later than the "head", effectively cutting DPS by A LOT!
some things listed above would be purely aestethical, but most of them would be factors that introduced some kind of new micro.
i would like that change as a terran, i mean they would need to increase aoe yay siege tanks, but they would have to roflnerf meele. So i just use my lovely marines and win on t1. (meele units > spread, aoe > clump, ranged units are dead when both is present (ling baneling)). Need to end game before ... spreaded banelings that will rip my units terribly because they can't run away effectiv anymore.
Its probably just a matter of taste, right now melee units are super strong and aoe units are super weak. Changing that up would change effectifly nothing, except more luck involved.
I prefer prolonged battles due to good micro, rather then rolling some w20 on how effectif the aoe units hit.
You could make a petition to add the Gingerbread man to this game---but that doesn't make it a good idea. Just like how petitions are terrible for balance, this is no different.
It is neat idea, but something more tangible than a petition will actually be needed if you really want to get this added into the game.
On May 29 2011 22:57 Dommk wrote: You could make a petition to add the Gingerbread man to this game---but that doesn't make it a good idea. Just like how petitions are terrible for balance, this is no different.
I'm a little confused by this analogy. You don't conduct a petition to make something a good idea, you do it because you think it's already a good idea and want it to be heard. The strength of the argument being promoted is what makes the petition compelling or not.
As for what more could be done, I think a Youtube video comparing battles in SC2 with battles in Brood War could be very persuasive, particularly if it got a lot of views and thumbs ups.
I wanted to share my thoughts on this possible inclusion in the game mechanics. There are pros and cons to the idea that I wanted to share. It makes the battle feel more natural and aesthetically pleasing, which is very important for any kind of spectator sport. "Is it enjoyable to watch?" is always a good question to ask. It adds higher value to tactical placement and positioning, since superdense balls were unnaturally mobile and coordinated, flanking isn't nearly as important than just getting every unit into a-move range. It makes the units and their interactions more readable.
I think best of all, is that it changes the battle dynamic completely. Instead of every unit firing at every other unit, we might start to see wave after wave of units coming in sequence. Instead of battles ending in seconds, we can have drawn out conflicts. What this does is add a lot for intensity and suspense to the actual fight, but more importantly it allows armies to withdraw without losing as much. This'll make way for more epic games and less one sided steamrolls that is characteristic of SC2.
The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
On May 22 2011 21:21 Vei wrote: imagine instead of having to split your marines you just had to press a button that made them split like the second image
obviously baneling splash will be increased to compensate
I think this would create issues with mineral lines though. Pathing changes wouldn't affect workers because they would phase through each other, and as a result a baneling damage radius increase would destroy mineral lines even more efficiently than it already does. I see a problem with that.
Edit: Just wanted to elaborate a bit, that my opinion on this echoes a lot of what has been said, that these changes are too large for blizzard to implement. Not only would the infestor and baneling have to be re-worked in order to be useful with the pathing changes, but maps would be drastically different in order for these units to be viable at all. More choke points would be needed, and zerg needs open spaces for surrounds in order to be most effective. Just my perspective.
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
How does making units stay further away from each other have absolutely anything to do with Dragoon AI?
Regardless, I'd trade Dragoon AI for the awful way SC2 units work right now any day.
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
I would give a kidney for BW style AI and unit control, alas that will never happen.
This just isn't something that Blizzard would consider, they're off in their own little world and nobody can reach them.
the way the units moved in SC were mainly because of the technology they had back then. In WC3, units are much more fluid, and they automatically space out.
I'd prefer the WC3 pathing over SC's any day.
I'd be okay with this idea, as long as all splash units are adjusted accordingly. (no doubt, they would be.)
I don't see the appeal of dragoon a.i and some of the bad a.i from SC1. Yeah it added more useless skill tests and requirements, but it's just plain bad gameplay. It's like asking for the camera in a Mario game to purposely hinder what you want to do, or where to go, so it can kill you instead for the sake of "skills".
With that said, I don't like the clumping in SC2. I wish they would spread a little more, but I sure as hell don't want dumb dragoon a.i.
i wish we could have dynamic movement like this, but blizzard seems very resistant to making stuff more like bw, since browder and crew become extremely defensive when sc2 is compared to bw
I think the biggest way to get this change passed isto hit Blizzard where it hurts, their beloved ladder system. Somebody should make some custom maps that allow the dynamic army movement and maybe the moving shot and create some sort of league around it. It's probably impossible but maybe if enough people played, I'm sure Blizzard would at least get the message.
I would love to see a switch button for changing in between the two modes - there are times when you want your army to get as fast as possible up a ramp and one would like to use the current method... and there are times when you wanna engage siege tanks with zergling/baneling (or collossi with bio) and you would like to switch to dynamic. Nowadays every attempt to split and properly position an army to avoid getting one-shotted is reset after a simple kite or pulling back ~10 range so the attacking army clumps again because of the "smart AI".
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
How does making units stay further away from each other have absolutely anything to do with Dragoon AI?
Regardless, I'd trade Dragoon AI for the awful way SC2 units work right now any day.
Dragoons were retarded because they tried to avoid each other, while being really fat so they often couldn't. They would act much like stalkers with SC2's AI.
I can't even comprehend how anyone can think SC2 units work in an "awful" way. Their AI is excellent. They actually do what you ask them to, unlike BW units.
Making collision boxes bigger would be OK, that would "de-ball" the game some without screwing up the AI, but I'm very very opposed to any change to archaic shitty BW AI.
Anyway it's moot: Blizzard have said they consider BW AI to be terrible and won't be using it.
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
How does making units stay further away from each other have absolutely anything to do with Dragoon AI?
Regardless, I'd trade Dragoon AI for the awful way SC2 units work right now any day.
Dragoons were retarded because they tried to avoid each other, while being really fat so they often couldn't. They would act much like stalkers with SC2's AI.
I can't even comprehend how anyone can think SC2 units work in an "awful" way. Their AI is excellent. They actually do what you ask them to, unlike BW units.
Making collision boxes bigger would be OK, that would "de-ball" the game some without screwing up the AI, but I'm very very opposed to any change to archaic shitty BW AI.
Anyway it's moot: Blizzard have said they consider BW AI to be terrible and won't be using it.
I think I've explained 1 million times over that dynamic pathing has nothing to do with BW AI.
I'm one of the pro sc2 clumping players... Anyone who thinks SC2 is an a-moved ball vs an a-moved ball obviously isn't playing at a decent level. Maybe when I'd watch streams in beta, I'd see such clumsy control of 1a vs 1a.
If you think it's really just grabbing a group of units and attacking because of SC2's unit control, well, you're wrong. The concave vs convex is probably the first thing you need to learn. Then you need to learn what units go in front and which go in back. It kills me when I see a protoss attack with stalkers in front of the zealots, and -usually- (no protoss OP jokes!) it kills the protoss player. There are quite a few other unit control tricks to be painfully learned as one loses over and over learning SC2 battle management.
Making units space naturally is decreasing the skill required with SC2. As mentioned earlier in the thread, units like banelings would become crap if spacing was automatic. This argument is just... meh. Feels like one of those SC2 vs BW threads bumped by an angry, drunk BW player.
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
How does making units stay further away from each other have absolutely anything to do with Dragoon AI?
Regardless, I'd trade Dragoon AI for the awful way SC2 units work right now any day.
Dragoons were retarded because they tried to avoid each other, while being really fat so they often couldn't. They would act much like stalkers with SC2's AI.
I can't even comprehend how anyone can think SC2 units work in an "awful" way. Their AI is excellent. They actually do what you ask them to, unlike BW units.
Making collision boxes bigger would be OK, that would "de-ball" the game some without screwing up the AI, but I'm very very opposed to any change to archaic shitty BW AI.
Anyway it's moot: Blizzard have said they consider BW AI to be terrible and won't be using it.
I think I've explained 1 million times over that dynamic pathing has nothing to do with BW AI.
also, those that do not have a background of broodwar may not find this intuitive but: if you have a massive army, terrain actually matters. movement through a choke would no longer take 2-4 seconds, it would take 15-20 seconds (this is not an overestimate). now imagine if the entirety of the opponents army gets to fight a trickle of your army, the result would be devestating. the aspect of fighting on the move would be extremely changed, tanks with good position would have their effectiveness at least tripled, drops and nydus worms would become relevant factors since they let you ignore terrain, fungal growth and forcefields would be able to easily constrict movement even in seemingly open terrain, battles would look much more epic since the visual size of armies would be tripled or quadroupled, a storm on one spot on the opponent could very well deal many times the damage that it would on another spot, the opponent would actually have to attempt to dodge these more powerful storms, ultralisks would no longer look ridicolously big and would be a much smaller issue regarding AI and A-moved blobs would become much weaker since the "tail" of the army would arrive much much later than the "head", effectively cutting DPS by A LOT!
some things listed above would be purely aestethical, but most of them would be factors that introduced some kind of new micro.
I'm sure the proposed change isn't forcing big gaps between units, but when you go through a choke, if you clump up all your units, you can get through it quicker but an area of effect spell(which would be buffed due to the ability to spread) would kill most of your army
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
I would give a kidney for BW style AI and unit control, alas that will never happen.
This just isn't something that Blizzard would consider, they're off in their own little world and nobody can reach them.
Saying that sc2 style unit control is caused by Blizzard ignoring you is pretty ignorant. Unit control in sc2 is fucking lightyears ahead of BW's. If you want your units spread out, you can already do it manually and magic box. It certainly shouldn't be caused by units that don't know how to path properly and take ages to walk around each other.
My suggestion earlier in this thread is just that blizzard add two buttons to "spread" and "combine" your selected group of units. The ones on the edges would walk "out" of the circle and the ones in the ball would move proportional to their distance from the edge. This would remove any micro required to maintain spread and would also eliminate the retarded BW pathing that many of you are saying is necessary.
yep the spreading is already there people are just to lazy to use it and want the C&C red alert X button so infantry autosplits lol. While at it we should implent you only have to build 1 unit and the difference of this unit between the races is just graphical. Oh and of course add some mind numbing effects so it would look awesome ...
But as mentioned above Warcraft3 had a nice function of formation that could be turned off. (though warcraft 3 revolved more about micro and every race having units able of tanking, so not something you could use in sc2 as a normal move, so magic boxing is the way to use it)
People seem to forget that the way the units moved in broodwar was because of shoddy programming, or programming that had yet to evolve. If the units moved the same way in sc2 it would be hilarious.
Okay. I've read the OP, and I'm genuinely confused why people have made such a big deal about this. In my opinion clumping isn't worse than the spread out mechanics of BW.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
This is the most important problem? That the game looks a bit funny? First of all, it's an opinion, I personally think things like speedlings looks much cooler in SC2. But even then, you would consider changing the game beyond belief, resetting almost all balance, JUST SO THINGS LOOK A TINY BIT BETTER?!?!? That seems insane.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
This one is vaguely legitimate, in that it improves SC2 as a spectator sport. However, again this seems kinda petty. And the main reason why in BW it was easier to tell differences was, as you said, the more defined colour palette and the fact it was 2D. So, really, having unit clumping is not the major reason for the relative difficulty in seeing what is happening during battles, the improved graphics are, and I personally prefer these graphics to the BW graphics.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units. If you look at the units that do splash damage, siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth, most of them have been nerfed since beta.
This one confused me the most. I understand that by spreading units you reduce the effectiveness of splash units. But why is this considered a benefit of having "Dynamic Unit Movements?" As people have said before, you will need to rebalance the splash attacks to make them potent again. So how is unit spreading good in this situation? It is merely different. From this perspective, all that will happen if BW unit spreading happens is another couple of months of constant patching in trying to balance the game again. And that is a bad thing.
One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps. Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
So, what you are saying is that, at an extremely high level, SC2 will require a form of very difficult micro that BW didn't? And that's a bad thing? No. It is most definitely a very good thing.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases. One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long. Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
Admittedly, battles are quicker in SC2. And it is really a matter of opinion whether that is a problem. You could say that quicker battles are much more punishing, and therefore, favour the better player more, as player have to be really quick on their micro to win. However, even if you do see shorter battles as a negative, in the future, in order to win battles, players will have to spread units manually to avoid large splash damage. And again, this is a good thing. More micro will be required to be good. SC2 clumping mechanics ftw!
So. What's the problem? Clumping mechanics and smart AI means that new players can do simple things like attack move without constantly nannying their units (a good thing), whereas really good players can stand out by having exceptional individual unit control (also a really good thing). It's a win-win.
"Bliz announces today that WC3 AI has been implemented in starcraft 2, however siege tanks splash damage range has been increased 100%" Fuuuuuuuuuuu
Seriously, I'm a staunch opponent of these kinds of things. Starcraft 2 is Starcraft 2, for better or worse, let us play the game we are playing and not complain that we're not playing brood war with augmented features. I know that units clumping is not entertaining to some people but (Despite being a zerg player) when I saw Polt stim stuttering a ball of marauders I could not help but marvel at how amazing his balls were.
I like how people says "People just need to learn how to split"
Yeah, sure, but it's annoying when the game is made in such a way that it discourages individual unit movement. No matter what you do, the units will clump into groups when you move them again, which is retarded
I hate unit clumping like the plague. I believe that bad movement control should be punished, regardless of skill, and not just be something that comes in to play just a bit in super high-level play.
And to everyone talking about the micro recquired to beat the blob at the highest echelons of play, the same people hating on "fighting the AI", isn't that just fighting the SC2 AI? Why should the simple act of killing a supply depot at the ramp, or killing marines spawning out of a barracks during a 6pool, something anyone can do in SC2 with a simple right-click or attack-move, be equally effective for everyone? Shouldn't there be a difference in unit control skill between a bronze and a platinum player, such as the muta control of a C+ player in BW compared to a D-level one?
The balance issue arguments both in the OP and from everyone speaking against it feels not only hollow but also pointless. This isn't BW with Blizzard going "Deal with it.". If we can expect them to "fix" the 7rax Reaper and the 2gate, then why can't we expect them to make the game more skillful while also making it fun to watch? And when it comes right down to the wire, wouldn't you like bigger, more dramatic looking psionic storms, bigger tank shots and bigger baneling bombs? Wouldn't you like two storms to ACTUALLY rip through a worker line?
I also think it is dumb to say that aesthetics is a silly thing to make such a "huge" change over. (HINT: It's not actually huge, same units, same mechanics, balance can be fixed, only the blob will die). This game was. according to the dev and PR teams before realease, developed with spectating and ESPORTS in mind. If spectating was a core goal and function of my product, I'd make sure it looked nice.
The game is so exciting and great right now. Noone will deny that, at least not in this subforum. I just wish it would be awesome. I just wish it would stop feeling like a great RTS with Jim Raynor on the cover and start feeling like StarCraft 2. The heir apparent, so to speak, not the squire.
For ESPORTS
And on a less teenager-locked-up-in-a-room-with-issues-flavoured note:
On June 15 2011 00:12 Probe1 wrote: I know that units clumping is not entertaining to some people but (Despite being a zerg player) when I saw Polt stim stuttering a ball of marauders I could not help but marvel at how amazing his balls were.
I signed the petition, this argument is spot-on. Blizzard implemented SC2's pathing to have the most possible efficient pathing, since BW's pathing issues made for bad gameplay.
As it turns out, the most efficient pathing noes not mean the best gameplay either. Huge balls of units that move fluidly look unnatural and exponentially raise the power of both ranged units and splash attacks, distorting intended gameplay.
We need a pathing engine that responds to commands impecabbly without using fluid physics to move unit groups, and the OP has nailed it.
On May 19 2011 14:18 Kovaz wrote: Just a thought I had the other day:
Because of the auto-ball pathing, the race with the most powerful AoE will always have the most powerful 200/200 army. Think about it: why is the Colossus so good? Units just align themselves naturally with its splash radius. Same with HTs. That's why toss is so good late game. Same thing to a lesser extent with terran Siege Tanks and vP Ghosts work the same way. Their damage is always maximized because units just like to cluster up so much. That's also why zerg seems so much weaker: they don't really have a dominant AoE unit so they can't exploit the game's natural mechanics for army positioning as much.
This sums up almost everything that SC2 needs to improve on.
So basically you want the units to auto-seperate. I thought the staunch BW elitist hated automation. But it goes back to something like BW it's OK apparently.
There's really no argument for why this would improve the game. Just "it was like this in BW lol"
This isn't going to happen in WOL, and I don't know why anybody would want it to. It would completely change the game, and all the balance work done so far would be completely destroyed. HOTS would be a great opportunity to implement something this drastic, but anybody wanting this kind of change now is nuts.
On June 15 2011 00:12 Probe1 wrote: "Bliz announces today that WC3 AI has been implemented in starcraft 2, however siege tanks splash damage range has been increased 100%" Fuuuuuuuuuuu
Seriously, I'm a staunch opponent of these kinds of things. Starcraft 2 is Starcraft 2, for better or worse, let us play the game we are playing and not complain that we're not playing brood war with augmented features. I know that units clumping is not entertaining to some people but (Despite being a zerg player) when I saw Polt stim stuttering a ball of marauders I could not help but marvel at how amazing his balls were.
Yeah.
if there is room for improvement, why not improve?
whats more amazing than polt's stim is bisu and flash's dragoon vs vulture mine.
On June 15 2011 02:13 Ownos wrote: Some people are just stuck in the past.
So basically you want the units to auto-seperate. I thought the staunch BW elitist hated automation. But it goes back to something like BW it's OK apparently.
There's really no argument for why this would improve the game. Just "it was like this in BW lol"
If you don't understand what it actually is, then don't speak.
On June 15 2011 00:40 Cheezy wrote: I like how people says "People just need to learn how to split"
Yeah, sure, but it's annoying when the game is made in such a way that it discourages individual unit movement. No matter what you do, the units will clump into groups when you move them again, which is retarded
Yet BW is constantly praised for its "difficult" (retarded) unit AI, because you actually need skill to control them properly.
To say that this would ruin SC2 is stupid. SC2 is a game that no one even understands yet, at least not like BW is today.
This means that people making claims about things ruining, or even making it better, are not based in truth whatsoever.
However, I wlll say that I agree with the OP. These kinds of things make the game more dynamic, from a general point of view. I seriously doubt people would have played (or still play) BW like they did (do) without dynamic unit movements.
Polt's ball 'micro' takes SO MUCH LESS SKILL than the hard micro in BW, look at the above post's mention of Bisu and Flash's Goon vs Vulture fights. Those requires so many different kinds of actions, thoughts, and prediction that it would probably melt your brain trying to do it at home. THAT is ESPORTS, THAT is true skill, not something that anyone (including a computer program) can do. Any bronze player can learn how to split bio balls and end up running train on people, that's fine. But calling that micro 'intense', or 'hard' compared to the truly difficult mechanics of BW is silly.
Sure it looks cool and all, but this is in wide open terrain. I would be interested in seeing how this AI functions on a normal map, with chokes, ramps, rocks, and other terrain that would cause the AI to function differently. Would it cause units and groups to split evenly around terrain when moving to a specific spot? What happens if you wanted to file your units along a wall to avoid vision of a tower?
I can think of many situations where this AI would not be useful and in fact, detrimental.
With basic unit movement and collisions being implemented in SC2, it seems more reasonable to impart the responsibility of positioning, specific unit movement, and unit scattering up to the player.
On June 15 2011 02:13 Ownos wrote: Some people are just stuck in the past.
So basically you want the units to auto-seperate. I thought the staunch BW elitist hated automation. But it goes back to something like BW it's OK apparently.
There's really no argument for why this would improve the game. Just "it was like this in BW lol"
There's an overwhelming and undeniable argument for why this would make the game better for spectating in pretty much every way. You're just completely blind to it.
Not only that, it's pretty hypocritical for anti-BW fans to call former BW players out because this would be "the computer spreading your units for you." Those same fans hated the old pathing because you had to control your units so much more - you essentially had to fight the pathing AI to get units to do what you wanted them to do. This is the exact same thing - you're just fighting the pathing AI to do something different. You want Dragoons to automatically go to the place you click without running around randomly? I don't want my units to automatically clump together whenever I have more than one selected and tell them to do something.
I really want to see a custom game with this implemented. I suspect the reason one has not been provided is that the unit control is so hilariously bad that he knew providing one would completely ruin his point. Seriously guys, try to think about what this would do to unit control. Do you really want every unit to degress to the dragoon?
This is my main reason (there are others too, of course) - to still argue with friends that BW is more interesting to watch and play than SC2, or if not "more", at least truly unique, irreplaceable -- and that comes from someone who's been more involved with SC2 than BW so far. The unpredictability of unit movements in BW makes the situations so much more rich; there's great suspense in battles that can't be matched yet by SC2.
I think in order for SC2 to match that, they need more positional micro elements, such as more inter-dependent AOE abilities that compensate for the smooth pathing engine. Blizzard have to realize that smoothness = 1. more realism; 2. less fun - believe it or not, realism isn't always fun. Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
On June 15 2011 02:59 figq wrote: Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
I hope there's an annual award of some kind for worst analogy, because you just won the gold medal.
On June 15 2011 02:46 Chronald wrote: To say that this would ruin SC2 is stupid. SC2 is a game that no one even understands yet, at least not like BW is today.
This means that people making claims about things ruining, or even making it better, are not based in truth whatsoever.
However, I wlll say that I agree with the OP. These kinds of things make the game more dynamic, from a general point of view. I seriously doubt people would have played (or still play) BW like they did (do) without dynamic unit movements.
Polt's ball 'micro' takes SO MUCH LESS SKILL than the hard micro in BW, look at the above post's mention of Bisu and Flash's Goon vs Vulture fights. Those requires so many different kinds of actions, thoughts, and prediction that it would probably melt your brain trying to do it at home. THAT is ESPORTS, THAT is true skill, not something that anyone (including a computer program) can do. Any bronze player can learn how to split bio balls and end up running train on people, that's fine. But calling that micro 'intense', or 'hard' compared to the truly difficult mechanics of BW is silly.
If you actually believe that a programmed AI couldn't do that micro way, way better than a human ever could you're mistaken and, frankly, blinded by your love for those players.
On June 15 2011 02:59 figq wrote: Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
I hope there's an annual award of some kind for worst analogy, because you just won the gold medal.
Could you elaborate? I only get that you think this analogy is bad, not why.
spreading your units out adequately requires skill. having the game do that for me, errrrr no thanks.
and why can't people learn to do this manually. create several hotkeys for your units and spread them out accordingly. if you find it difficult, then practice.
besides, this would be game breaking. no need for me to go into what will break, since this includes nearly everything.
please people, learn to play starcraft 2, this game isn't BW, and the whole skillset from BW does not carry over to SC2. let me make this clear, SC2 is a different game.
On June 15 2011 02:59 figq wrote: Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
I hope there's an annual award of some kind for worst analogy, because you just won the gold medal.
Could you elaborate? I only get that you think this analogy is bad, not why.
I'm not the one you quoted but your analogy is based on some weird RL chess game you invented on the spot. Using a analogy is usually best to compare solid known things, not a invented game where no one knows the rules or what it is really.
On June 15 2011 03:14 Existor wrote: With this dynamic movement baneling and tank splash must be increased
Hellion splash need to be both longer and broader, will look weird as hell. If the OP screenshots are what they want tank splash needs to be alot bigger. Roaches/Immortals will have a really hard time as their range is so low. Lots and lots of stuff will be broken.
I'd rather see that they just increase the area between units a tiny bit. It doesn't need to be as huge as in the OP screenshots in my opinion.
On June 15 2011 03:15 starmeat_ wrote: spreading your units out adequately requires skill. having the game do that for me, errrrr no thanks.
and why can't people learn to do this manually. create several hotkeys for your units and spread them out accordingly. if you find it difficult, then practice.
besides, this would be game breaking. no need for me to go into what will break, since this includes nearly everything.
I'm fine with spreading my units out but it's almost entirely negated as soon as I actually move my army. I wouldn't complain if there was less of a tendency for units to clump up when moved.
Yeah Ball V Ball fights are not as fun to watch as Brood War fights, it seems unrealistic, and yes I know Starcraft is not made to be realistic.
It also would help with strategies, like how your army was positioned, it would be easier to keep zealots in front, also Colossus would be less powerful since your units would be spread out even more. This would be a great change however it seems unlikely.
According to Browder dynamic movement is a result of bad pathing, and apparently the pathing in sc2 is so good that units get the urge to constantly elbow each other to death, and so they won't change that "just for the sake of esports".
On June 15 2011 00:54 DerNebel wrote: I hate unit clumping like the plague. I believe that bad movement control should be punished, regardless of skill, and not just be something that comes in to play just a bit in super high-level play.
And to everyone talking about the micro recquired to beat the blob at the highest echelons of play, the same people hating on "fighting the AI", isn't that just fighting the SC2 AI? Why should the simple act of killing a supply depot at the ramp, or killing marines spawning out of a barracks during a 6pool, something anyone can do in SC2 with a simple right-click or attack-move, be equally effective for everyone? Shouldn't there be a difference in unit control skill between a bronze and a platinum player, such as the muta control of a C+ player in BW compared to a D-level one?
Your assertion that there is no unit control skill difference between players is ridiculous. Games are regularly decided by "unit control showdowns" from bronze to grandmasters. Not all games are decided by unit control showdowns, but many many do, and that is what is important. Many games are decided by overall macro, unit composition, in-game decisions and build choices.
Your idea that it should be difficult for bronze players to perform the simple act of killing a supply depot is ludicrous. There is no reason to make simple acts like that more challenging. Unit control showdowns determine enough games and there are absolutely regular, noticeable differences between the unit control skills of players at all levels.
I just can't agree with you that from a spectators point of view, the ideas suggested in the OP would make the viewing experience any better.
On June 15 2011 03:15 starmeat_ wrote: spreading your units out adequately requires skill. having the game do that for me, errrrr no thanks.
and why can't people learn to do this manually. create several hotkeys for your units and spread them out accordingly. if you find it difficult, then practice.
besides, this would be game breaking. no need for me to go into what will break, since this includes nearly everything.
I'm fine with spreading my units out but it's almost entirely negated as soon as I actually move my army. I wouldn't complain if there was less of a tendency for units to clump up when moved.
Exactly, they clump over very short distances. It would be nice if the armies were more reliable during these little ajustments. Constantly having to ajust them after every little move just leads to really sloppy battles.
I don't agree with the OP, however. People should be required to control an manage their armies. But tiny ajustments should cause your army to become a giant ball.
It looks aesthetically pleasing, but wouldn't it actually be detrimental to the game if all AoE spells become essentially nullified due to a change like this?
I know I certainly wouldn't make high templar anymore, and even infestors (as strong as they are now) would become pretty laughable. Banelings and tanks would be useless, etc.
I think spreading units out is something a person should control during army battles, not something that should automatically be done by the AI, simply because there are spells that take advantage of whether armies are split or tightly clustered.
Plus, I also feel like the different natural speeds of the different units would interfere with the new programming of this auto-spread o.O
On June 15 2011 02:59 figq wrote: Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
I hope there's an annual award of some kind for worst analogy, because you just won the gold medal.
Could you elaborate? I only get that you think this analogy is bad, not why.
I'm not the one you quoted but your analogy is based on some weird RL chess game you invented on the spot. Using a analogy is usually best to compare solid known things, not a invented game where no one knows the rules or what it is really.
Alright, let's consider (say) soccer vs chess strategy-wise. I didn't specify a team game, because any one works for the example: volleyball, basketball, hockey, baseball etc.
On June 15 2011 03:37 karpo wrote: You said "chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield". That's not volleyball, basketball, hockey or baseball. That's a made up thing that no one's ever seen and knows nothing about.
That's fine, I already agreed, and tried to clarify.
According to this blizzard is strongly opposed to even thinking of adjusting this part of the game and clumping is apparently a good thing.
They say clumping is the side effect of better pathing. They also say they are trying to sort the ball thing out with increasing radius of units and stuff. I think that's the best thing, not huge like in OP but a small increase just enough so we don't have marine+marauder in a dark+player color ball.
On June 15 2011 02:59 figq wrote: Take for example chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield, instead of pawns on board squares: by becoming more realistic the game would lose all of its sophisticated thought processes.
I hope there's an annual award of some kind for worst analogy, because you just won the gold medal.
Could you elaborate? I only get that you think this analogy is bad, not why.
I'm not the one you quoted but your analogy is based on some weird RL chess game you invented on the spot. Using a analogy is usually best to compare solid known things, not a invented game where no one knows the rules or what it is really.
Alright, let's consider (say) soccer vs chess strategy-wise. I didn't specify a team game, because any one works for the example: volleyball, basketball, hockey, baseball etc.
You said "chess played with real people fighting on a free battlefield". That's not volleyball, basketball, hockey or baseball. That's a made up thing that no one's ever seen and knows nothing about.
Let me summarize this for people that don't read/write posts exceeding 2 lines of text:
The OP does not state that the game will split the units for you!
Yes, having a button to spread/clump your units is a bad idea and it is not what the OP is referring to!
Yes, AOE damage (including banelings) will be affected and maybe a change to damage and/or area of effect will be necessary!
The dynamic unit movement the OP is talking about won't make your units act like goons in BW!
I, and many more, addressed most of the pros and cons regarding this, but in longer posts (like here).
If you don't have the time to fully read and understand the OP, don't waste yours and everyone's else time by writing useless posts that have nothing to do with what OP is talking about.
On June 15 2011 03:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks aesthetically pleasing, but wouldn't it actually be detrimental to the game if all AoE spells become essentially nullified due to a change like this?
I know I certainly wouldn't make high templar anymore, and even infestors (as strong as they are now) would become pretty laughable. Banelings and tanks would be useless, etc.
I think spreading units out is something a person should control during army battles, not something that should automatically be done by the AI, simply because there are spells that take advantage of whether armies are split or tightly clustered.
Plus, I also feel like the different natural speeds of the different units would interfere with the new programming of this auto-spread o.O
Tanks had to be nerfed into the ground due to unit clumping. They could be returned to their former glory. Banelings would also have dynamic pathing, reducing their likelihood to get utterly owned by a small group of spread tanks as they move forward and clump together (since they'll no longer clump), so there are both benefits and detriments to that one. As for AoE units, it just means you'll need more than one specialist to cover an opponent's army. I'd like to note that there has been a lot of complaints regarding EMP/Fungal/Storm as being "OP" if used correctly, and I'll take a wager it's because armies tend to clump when they move, consequently increasing the effectiveness of a single AoE ability significantly.
Finally, regarding "control during army battles", right now if you even think about moving your army after splitting it, they all clump up again naturally. If you spend all your time constantly splitting your army during an engagement, those units are not fighting -- they're walking around. Basically, you have to pre-split and hope you don't have to move around too much, or have chunks of your army not contributing to DPS as they get repositioned mid-battle. Either way, it's bad.
spreading your units out adequately requires skill. having the game do that for me, errrrr no thanks.
and why can't people learn to do this manually. create several hotkeys for your units and spread them out accordingly. if you find it difficult, then practice.
By implementing this change, it would mean that splash would also be increased. Therefore, it would still be beneficial to split up your units even more manually.
Indeed, this would be extremely cool if it was implemented, however, chances are extremely low. I don't think blizzard would want to completely re-balance the game from the ground up. What I would be extremely interested in is seeing a broodwar starcraft 2 mod that implements dynamic movement.
On June 15 2011 03:40 QTIP. wrote: Colossus splash would barely hit anything if the bioball was as spread out as the pictures show..
Oh my fucking god... can you actually read? The post just above yours covered that, as did so many others. To be honest if I was a TL admin (thank god I'm not) you would've got a temp ban for not reading OP, or the many other posts about what you just wrote.
Keep Starcraft 2, Starcraft 2. I don't want an updated Brood War. There is always SC2: BW if you want stuff like this and 12 unit control groups and bad AI.
It would be very nice if blizzard adding dynamic pathing. The thing is though Sen asked them about this very issue and was flat out denied. Blizzard has no interest in changing such a core part of the engine. A change like that will only come with a new game.
On June 15 2011 03:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks aesthetically pleasing, but wouldn't it actually be detrimental to the game if all AoE spells become essentially nullified due to a change like this?
I know I certainly wouldn't make high templar anymore, and even infestors (as strong as they are now) would become pretty laughable. Banelings and tanks would be useless, etc.
I think spreading units out is something a person should control during army battles, not something that should automatically be done by the AI, simply because there are spells that take advantage of whether armies are split or tightly clustered.
Plus, I also feel like the different natural speeds of the different units would interfere with the new programming of this auto-spread o.O
Tanks had to be nerfed into the ground due to unit clumping. They could be returned to their former glory. Banelings would also have dynamic pathing, reducing their likelihood to get utterly owned by a small group of spread tanks as they move forward and clump together (since they'll no longer clump), so there are both benefits and detriments to that one. As for AoE units, it just means you'll need more than one specialist to cover an opponent's army. I'd like to note that there has been a lot of complaints regarding EMP/Fungal/Storm as being "OP" if used correctly, and I'll take a wager it's because armies tend to clump when they move, consequently increasing the effectiveness of a single AoE ability significantly.
Finally, regarding "control during army battles", right now if you even think about moving your army after splitting it, they all clump up again naturally. If you spend all your time constantly splitting your army during an engagement, those units are not fighting -- they're walking around. Basically, you have to pre-split and hope you don't have to move around too much, or have chunks of your army not contributing to DPS as they get repositioned mid-battle. Either way, it's bad.
I don't think anyone thinks storm is OP lol. And if spellcaster units don't have decently strong spells, they won't be used. And I think when you see amazing unit control, proper micro, and fantastic army splits, that separates the amazing players from the good ones.
Granted, I don't mind these cute "hey, it makes the game easier!" mechanics, but this modification will actually cause obvious imbalances, as pointed out by everyone. Now that the game is really close to balance, I don't see a reason to implement a purely aesthetic change that would utterly destroy half the units in the game simply because some people don't like to get over their "one control group" syndrome- a problem that even I need to work on immensely.
oh god. it's cool that you took the time and effort to put thought into this, and some of the points you've made make sense.... but i really hope this doesn't happen to sc2. This would either make frustrating AI, huge maps and zerg units would pwn. protoss is made where it needs to be in a ball in a lot of situations, and terran to an extent too, but zerg prefers units being spread out and large flanking possibilities for both their opponent and themselves.
It just changes the game design too much. Maybe it would work in a different RTS or sc3 if they make some major design changes
Edit: before anyone says anything, i want to also point out that banelings would suck against rines, so not all would be good for zerg
On June 15 2011 04:14 stickyickynugz wrote: I don't think this would be good... it's hard enough fitting zerg armies through chokes T_T
Why would an army fit through a choke point?
One of the weirdest parts of SC2 is how quickly units can move through a tiny space. It's part of why positional play and defender's advantage is much less significant than it was in Broodwar.
On June 15 2011 04:14 stickyickynugz wrote: I don't think this would be good... it's hard enough fitting zerg armies through chokes T_T
Why would an army fit through a choke point?
One of the weirdest parts of SC2 is how quickly units can move through a tiny space. It's part of why positional play and defender's advantage is much less significant than it was in Broodwar.
It's weird that each unit doesn't need thirty feet of personal bubble space to walk around?
On June 15 2011 06:00 Lord_J wrote: It would have been better if they did it that way in the first place, but I think it's too late to make such a fundamental change to game mechanics.
Why? Two more expansions will change the game mechanics anyways ...
On June 15 2011 04:14 stickyickynugz wrote: I don't think this would be good... it's hard enough fitting zerg armies through chokes T_T
Why would an army fit through a choke point?
One of the weirdest parts of SC2 is how quickly units can move through a tiny space. It's part of why positional play and defender's advantage is much less significant than it was in Broodwar.
It's weird that each unit doesn't need thirty feet of personal bubble space to walk around?
Have you ever seen a Starcraft game? Have you ever seen human beings walk?
Of course people need a bubble of space to move properly. SC2's units pack into formations so tight that they bump into each other, and those bumps cascade throughout the group. Human beings packed so tightly cannot walk properly, let alone sprint into battle wearing powered armor and firing guns.
Thirty feet is a worthless exaggeration. Three feet is far more realistic for an unencumbered human (of which the game includes none, except mayyyybe the ghost). Of course, humans can squeeze more tightly together if necessary, but in doing so they are greatly hindered until they spread back out.
Units in SC1 can be clumped up together, but the main difference is that it doesn't happen automatically. In SC2, giving a group of units any kind of order, whether it be to attack or go the bathroom, causes them to tightly pack up no matter what their previous positioning was, whereas BW units maintained formation until they encountered terrain, which then caused them to walk single file.
Both SC1 and SC2 essentially require you to fight the AI. You fight SC2's clumping to spread units, and you fight SC1's spreading to keep them in range. I find it hilarious because this thread is filled to the brim with people posting about how horrible it is to fight the AI, and then in the very same breath talk about how amazing it is to watch SC2 pro players fight the AI in order to arrange their troops into concaves or spreading marines out against banelings. SC1 and SC2 may be different games, but they ultimately rely on the same concepts to promote good e-sports play.
This thread has less to do with whether you think fighting the AI is bad or not, because both games force you to do it. It has more to do with which AI is more entertaining: death balls or spread army formations. I feel that BW's pathing brought more pros than cons (better visual clarity, battles have a more epic feel, longer fights, more impressive AoE spells, more interesting melee vs. range dynamics), and it's why I feel that changing the pathing for HotS would be a good decision.
On June 15 2011 03:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks aesthetically pleasing, but wouldn't it actually be detrimental to the game if all AoE spells become essentially nullified due to a change like this?
I know I certainly wouldn't make high templar anymore, and even infestors (as strong as they are now) would become pretty laughable. Banelings and tanks would be useless, etc.
I think spreading units out is something a person should control during army battles, not something that should automatically be done by the AI, simply because there are spells that take advantage of whether armies are split or tightly clustered.
Plus, I also feel like the different natural speeds of the different units would interfere with the new programming of this auto-spread o.O
Tanks had to be nerfed into the ground due to unit clumping. They could be returned to their former glory. Banelings would also have dynamic pathing, reducing their likelihood to get utterly owned by a small group of spread tanks as they move forward and clump together (since they'll no longer clump), so there are both benefits and detriments to that one. As for AoE units, it just means you'll need more than one specialist to cover an opponent's army. I'd like to note that there has been a lot of complaints regarding EMP/Fungal/Storm as being "OP" if used correctly, and I'll take a wager it's because armies tend to clump when they move, consequently increasing the effectiveness of a single AoE ability significantly.
Finally, regarding "control during army battles", right now if you even think about moving your army after splitting it, they all clump up again naturally. If you spend all your time constantly splitting your army during an engagement, those units are not fighting -- they're walking around. Basically, you have to pre-split and hope you don't have to move around too much, or have chunks of your army not contributing to DPS as they get repositioned mid-battle. Either way, it's bad.
I don't think anyone thinks storm is OP lol. And if spellcaster units don't have decently strong spells, they won't be used. And I think when you see amazing unit control, proper micro, and fantastic army splits, that separates the amazing players from the good ones.
Granted, I don't mind these cute "hey, it makes the game easier!" mechanics, but this modification will actually cause obvious imbalances, as pointed out by everyone. Now that the game is really close to balance, I don't see a reason to implement a purely aesthetic change that would utterly destroy half the units in the game simply because some people don't like to get over their "one control group" syndrome- a problem that even I need to work on immensely.
Storm isn't really OP (hence my using quotes around it), but that doesn't stop people from complaining about it and other AoE abilities when the game engine causes their armies to clump into tight little balls. Basically, my point was that the game engine rewards AoE way too much, causing much grief toward any AoE unit -- people whine(d) about ghosts, infestors, HTs, colossus, tanks, occasionally banelings, etc. Tanks got heavily nerfed, HTs and ghosts got nerfed, Blizzard mentioned they might look at the colossus as well if HT nerfs weren't enough, etc.
I've seen plenty of amazing unit control, good micro, fantastic army splits (MarineKing TvZ in GSL Open Season 2 anyone?), etc. Those things don't go away with the implementation of dynamic pathing. Just look at Brood War.
It's not a cute "hey, it makes the game easier!" mechanic. It's how every Blizzard RTS prior to SC2 worked. If you want to argue that SC:BW had easier mechanics than SC2, I'll let you wear that one. You didn't address any of my points regarding control during army battles, either, instead brushing this off as a "purely aesthetic change". Please read posts you reply to next time. My issue isn't aesthetics, it's about quality of gameplay. Right now, Blizzard's approach to the issue has been to nerf AoE. I just think it'd be better if the system didn't inherently overly-reward AoE thanks to army clumping, then AoE itself wouldn't have to be nerfed. On the flip side, things like the Protoss "death ball" and MMM balls would also be nerfed as a result, since there would be far less DPS in such a tightly compacted space.
Right now, you have this lop-sided result where these army balls crush everything with ease, and then AoE evaporates the army balls. It's not good for the game, and not good for e-sports IMO, when the situation completely reverses at the tip of a hat. It's the same reason why people complained about Terran > Protoss early game, while Protoss > Terran late game. Consequently, we saw Terran early game get nerfed a bit, while Protoss late game got slightly nerfed -- the right thing to do.
On June 15 2011 07:05 Spawkuring wrote: Units in SC1 can be clumped up together, but the main difference is that it doesn't happen automatically. In SC2, giving a group of units any kind of order, whether it be to attack or go the bathroom, causes them to tightly pack up no matter what their previous positioning was, whereas BW units maintained formation until they encountered terrain, which then caused them to walk single file.
Both SC1 and SC2 essentially require you to fight the AI. You fight SC2's clumping to spread units, and you fight SC1's spreading to keep them in range. I find it hilarious because this thread is filled to the brim with people posting about how horrible it is to fight the AI, and then in the very same breath talk about how amazing it is to watch SC2 pro players fight the AI in order to arrange their troops into concaves or spreading marines out against banelings. SC1 and SC2 may be different games, but they ultimately rely on the same concepts to promote good e-sports play.
This thread has less to do with whether you think fighting the AI is bad or not, because both games force you to do it. It has more to do with which AI is more entertaining: death balls or spread army formations. I feel that BW's pathing brought more pros than cons (better visual clarity, battles have a more epic feel, longer fights, more impressive AoE spells, more interesting melee vs. range dynamics), and it's why I feel that changing the pathing for HotS would be a good decision.
Completely agree with you on this. I think if you had to err on one side or the other, it's better to err on the side of armies keeping their formation after you spread them. IMO I feel unit clumping in SC2 has brought a lot of problems to Blizzard in terms of both balance and watchability. They've worked hard and managed to tweak the balance issues to a tolerable level, and kudos to them for doing so, but I still have to ask, "Why continue to nerf AoE abilities/units instead of just adding dynamic pathing?"
I really hope Blizzard is reading this thread and is at least considering this change for HotS. As is said many times in this thread already, making units more spaced out like they are in BW would be a great thing for eSports and for the overall gameplay of Starcraft 2
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement.
There's nothing more "dynamic" with this than with SC2's standard pathing. Neither is more "dynamic" than the other.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
No, having them spread out makes your army look bigger than it actually is. Your army is the size of their collective collision area. No more, no less.
Everything else here is a value judgement.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
You seem to be sabotaging your own argument. You say that the lowest graphics setting makes it easier to see the different between units. But the lowest graphics settings does not change the units pathing. So "clumped" units would be perfectly distinguishable if the higher graphics settings didn't do things that made it hard to tell units apart. Therefore, you're saying that you don't need to change pathfinding; you need to get Blizzard to adjust the higher graphics levels to make units more visually distinct.
This is something blizzard should definitely just try out on the PTR.
You, like many other people, seem to be under the impression that "clumping" is just something that can be taken away. That there's some line of code that they can just excise and presto, units don't "clump" anymore.
What you call "clumping" is not something that was deliberately engineered into the game. It is no more deliberately engineered than Muta-stacking or Patrol-micro were deliberately engineered into SC1. "Clumping" is the ultimate and inevitable result of having better pathing.
Units go in the most direct path to the designated target. If you tell a large group of units that are relatively close where to go, then they will all go together. As a single group. Because that's the fastest, most optimal way for all of those units to do what the player told them to do.
What people are asking for is nothing less than for Blizzard to break pathfinding. You want to take the excellent pathfinding in SC2 and break it so that units do not take the optimal path.
Breaking pathfinding would have far reaching implications. Units will, by "design", not go where you tell them to. This could lead to any number of unpleasant emergent properties for unit pathing. Maybe Stalkers start acting like Dragoons from SC1, which is not even remotely like a good thing. If you try to get two Thors down a ramp, will they get stuck on each other and neither be able to progress?
What you are asking for is not a simple or trivial thing. It is not something you just do. It fundamentally changes everything. Not just unit balance, but everything.
I personally don't know if this would make SC2's overall gameplay better or not. But I do know this: if it is possible for pathfinding to be too good, if it is possible for the game to do what the player told it to too well, then StarCraft-style RTS gameplay is, as a whole, fundamentally broken. If the only way to make good gameplay is to break the interface, then something is dreadfully wrong with StarCraft-style RTS games.
I'm gonna requote this excellent post since I get the feeling a lot of people that recently have replied seem to forget that this change would actually break path planning and do more harm than good. Really, this change could have horrible side effects.
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement. If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement.
There's nothing more "dynamic" with this than with SC2's standard pathing. Neither is more "dynamic" than the other.
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic. Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
No, having them spread out makes your army look bigger than it actually is. Your army is the size of their collective collision area. No more, no less.
Everything else here is a value judgement.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units. SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings. The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
You seem to be sabotaging your own argument. You say that the lowest graphics setting makes it easier to see the different between units. But the lowest graphics settings does not change the units pathing. So "clumped" units would be perfectly distinguishable if the higher graphics settings didn't do things that made it hard to tell units apart. Therefore, you're saying that you don't need to change pathfinding; you need to get Blizzard to adjust the higher graphics levels to make units more visually distinct.
This is something blizzard should definitely just try out on the PTR.
You, like many other people, seem to be under the impression that "clumping" is just something that can be taken away. That there's some line of code that they can just excise and presto, units don't "clump" anymore.
What you call "clumping" is not something that was deliberately engineered into the game. It is no more deliberately engineered than Muta-stacking or Patrol-micro were deliberately engineered into SC1. "Clumping" is the ultimate and inevitable result of having better pathing.
Units go in the most direct path to the designated target. If you tell a large group of units that are relatively close where to go, then they will all go together. As a single group. Because that's the fastest, most optimal way for all of those units to do what the player told them to do.
What people are asking for is nothing less than for Blizzard to break pathfinding. You want to take the excellent pathfinding in SC2 and break it so that units do not take the optimal path.
Breaking pathfinding would have far reaching implications. Units will, by "design", not go where you tell them to. This could lead to any number of unpleasant emergent properties for unit pathing. Maybe Stalkers start acting like Dragoons from SC1, which is not even remotely like a good thing. If you try to get two Thors down a ramp, will they get stuck on each other and neither be able to progress?
What you are asking for is not a simple or trivial thing. It is not something you just do. It fundamentally changes everything. Not just unit balance, but everything.
I personally don't know if this would make SC2's overall gameplay better or not. But I do know this: if it is possible for pathfinding to be too good, if it is possible for the game to do what the player told it to too well, then StarCraft-style RTS gameplay is, as a whole, fundamentally broken. If the only way to make good gameplay is to break the interface, then something is dreadfully wrong with StarCraft-style RTS games.
I'm gonna requote this excellent post since I get the feeling a lot of people that recently have replied seem to forget that this change would actually break path planning and do more harm than good. Really, this change could have horrible side effects.
I actually find that post to be rather misinformed. I wouldn't be surprised if they never played WarCraft 3 before. The idea with dynamic pathing (or at least, what we're referring to as "dynamic pathing"), as the OP and others have mentioned, is to have selected units maintain their formation when given a move command. WarCraft 3 actually had an option that let you turn this feature on or off as you pleased.
Formations Units are automatically placed in formations when units are group selected and moved about the map. Formation behavior ensures groups arrive at destinations together (rather than single file) and has the appropriate units in the front. Melee units are typically placed up front followed by ranged units such as Archers, then spellcasters and Siege Units.
Bypassing Formations When a group of units is given the Move command, they will all move in formation, occasionally pausing along the way to let slower units move into position to maintain the integrity of the formation. If you instead want the units to move to a location at best possible speed, you may hold down the Alt button while right-clicking on their destination.
In fact, the WarCraft 3 army formation is more sophisticated than what's being asked; WC3 had units slow down or even stop to allow slower units to catch up, just to maintain formation. We're just asking that the selected units you're commanding don't auto-clump when moving as a group, instead maintaining their position to a certain level (as demonstrated in the pictures of the OP).
On May 30 2011 04:52 Cloak wrote: The cons is that it will upset balance. So, I think the best way to address that is to wait for the inevitable upset in balance (Heart of the Swarm). That'd be the perfect opportunity to make big changes for the better.
The con is that it's annoying as hell to have your units be retarded like BW. Yes, it makes some pretty screenshots. When you're actually using it though, it sucks. People actually *want* units to be as stupid as dragoons?
How does making units stay further away from each other have absolutely anything to do with Dragoon AI?
Regardless, I'd trade Dragoon AI for the awful way SC2 units work right now any day.
Dragoons were retarded because they tried to avoid each other, while being really fat so they often couldn't. They would act much like stalkers with SC2's AI.
I can't even comprehend how anyone can think SC2 units work in an "awful" way. Their AI is excellent. They actually do what you ask them to, unlike BW units.
Making collision boxes bigger would be OK, that would "de-ball" the game some without screwing up the AI, but I'm very very opposed to any change to archaic shitty BW AI.
Anyway it's moot: Blizzard have said they consider BW AI to be terrible and won't be using it.
I think I've explained 1 million times over that dynamic pathing has nothing to do with BW AI.
Your post says that BW's "dynamic unit movement" is merely a side effect from it's poor (well, understandably primitive) AI, yes?
How is one supposed to achieve this effect while keeping SC2's far superior AI?
BW can't use dynamic pathing because it uses A*. Its collision avoidance is restricted by the fact that waypoints get blocked by other units.
SC2 doesn't have this restriction because its collision avoidance is not affected by waypoints, you simply won't get dragoon AI issues, or any of the "bad pathing" problems you had in BW. You just need to adjust the algorithm so they don't stay bunched together and flock differently.
Go look at Company of Heroes, they have perfect pathing for infantry, while not clumping together.
Unnatural clumping and weird pathing are not something for the future, they belong in the past! Terrans got radio's to phone each other, zerg don't want to talk, they just listen, and protoss can invade each others mind from a distance! So why do they need to stand next to each other for hugs!
Approve this post everyone! Do it for a better world where all races can shout their messages across the world, an open world where everyone can be heard, where noone needs to huddle in a clump so that the individual won't be recognized anymore. For a better world where the small zergling is not pushed around by his big mean ultralisk brother! For a better world where high templars can walk around without the fear of being too close to their friends, and accidentially becoming an archon!
i remembered i tried out the sc:bw on the sc2 engine, and the zerglings spread themselves out and even run like they did in bw, so it is possible and probably pretty easy to implement this into the game. the problem is not so much if its possible, but that blizzard is stubborn and probably wont do this, for whatever their reasons. i think it would be great, making it a little easier to micro singular units but also maybe key decisions in game where to spread or clump as the OP was correct with units will stay spread when they are still but the second you move them they clump up so fast. the only thing i can think of to create somewhat of a spread is to patrol move your army, which if blizzard keeps it the way it is, im sure people will come up with creative ways to spread there units when moving.
I think this would be the single greatest change they could implement in HotS to be honest. I'd love to see this. Is there a thread about this on the battle.net forums?
This thread makes me sad Because this change will never happen. Not now, not with HotS, not with LotV. And worst of all, we are completely at blizzards mercy in regards to this game. Unlike BW, or hell even WC3, They have complete control on how the game is played thanks to not having Lan or another option for a Ladder system...
Personal, I don't know if its the pathing, or units, or ratio of workers to army, or how little expos are needed for a 200/200 army (hint: I think its all of the above), but I am losing intrigue in SC2. The game just does not feel right. I would feel this way even if I had not played BW.
"I wish it was like broodwar; because then the gameplay would be more like broodwar in this element"
"I liked the pacing and unit movement in broodwar and the more fluid movement in sc2 seems alien to me and I dislike it, therefore we should change it."
I'm sorry but this is honestly how I read your OP, despite not referencing BW much it really seems to me that you just don't like it because it is different.
I have never had any issue with telling what units were what or what they were doing; the game is designed to be faster-paced; splash units are strong but the game is balanced around that atm (although they still seem to be playing with infestors).
The only thing that really bothered me was that sometimes units would get stuck in a clump and go with it even if you didnt want them to (they weren't ordered to move); I've had my unsieged tanks run along with my marines before for instance. This concern isn't even mentioned in your OP.
Why is this good for e-sports, unless you propose that anything like BW in anyway is good for esports because BW itself is/was? Or maybe longer games = better for esports for some reason?
I don't want to go back to 1990s unit pathing. Hell even the pathing in HoN gets on my nerves sometimes.
I would love to see this. Unfortunately, Blizzard cares more about casual gamers than the pro scene. And if they changed the unit "balling" at all, it might make it a smidgen harder for casual gamers to adjust.
It's good for esports because you can see things easier and the battles themselves look better; it's more realistic because it's waves of individual units fighting each other, rather than a ball vs a ball. This way you sometimes may even need to scroll a bit to manage the battle, rather than just stare at the center of your screen. This makes the scale of battles seem longer. Also, battles being too short can be a problem because, well, things happen to fast to take in. And spectators would probably like to know what is going on clearly.
Blizzard has stated many times that SC2 is meant to be a different game. Any comparison to BW to them is meaningless... People arguing that SC2 should be more like BW is not going to get through to Blizzard designers
On June 15 2011 13:50 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: @StarMoon
Pathing and spacing is different.
It's good for esports because you can see things easier and the battles themselves look better; it's more realistic because it's waves of individual units fighting each other, rather than a ball vs a ball. This way you sometimes may even need to scroll a bit to manage the battle, rather than just stare at the center of your screen. This makes the scale of battles seem longer. Also, battles being too short can be a problem because, well, things happen to fast to take in. And spectators would probably like to know what is going on clearly.
i didn't play BW, but recently i have seen the BW streams, and the battles are really entertaining.
a couple of sprites with bad resolution show a lot better at fight, than the pseudo battles in 2 secs where a ball army obliterate another ball army.
i see dustin browder like a threat to the development of e-sports SC2 scene.
On June 15 2011 15:37 darkcloud8282 wrote: Blizzard has stated many times that SC2 is meant to be a different game. Any comparison to BW to them is meaningless... People arguing that SC2 should be more like BW is not going to get through to Blizzard designers
It still is a stupid declaration though, because if SC2 was *truly different* there wouldnt be Marines and Zealots and Zerglings with comparable stats and so on and they would have put SC2 in a drastically different time so they could explain the absence of these units for a consistent lore.
In any game which "seems realistic" (FPS shooters like Battlefield 2 for example) you kinda "have to" implement physics which are similar to the real life physics. Implementing "bouncy physics" (like walking on the moon) wouldnt make the game feel "natural". For Starcraft the basis for this "realism" is the Brood War environment, because it had 10+ years to settle in and feels "natural" now. Thus Archons, Siege Tanks, Zerglings, ... dont feel that natural and are the reason why people want SC2 to feel more like BW. Many of the "nifty new basic mechanics" are the reason why so many adjustments to the units are required to balance the game and the "tight unit movement" is one of them. Changing them to an acceptable level would be the wise choice to make and since there are still two expansions to come out there is still time to do it.
Browder's answer to this in the Sen interviews would make a politician proud:
"Yes but no. You are right but we didn't make a mistake. We think SC2's pathing is fine but we are going to do something about it. Not what you are suggesting because we didn't make a mistake. Something else. You'll see."
It's a sad thing to say but if a modded melee map implements this and the dozen or so changes the community has unanimously been requesting since launch, I'm not looking back.
That's kinda cool, but it will make some units to become useless. Like colossus : it'll be able to hit only one, maybe 2 units, nearly the same for tanks. But it will drastically increase the effectivness of banelings, 'cause it'll be easier to send them in the middle of the other army, so they will splash more units. This change would force huge balancing patch, I think it's the major problem.
On June 15 2011 19:30 Sueco wrote: Browder's answer to this in the Sen interviews would make a politician proud:
"Yes but no. You are right but we didn't make a mistake. We think SC2's pathing is fine but we are going to do something about it. Not what you are suggesting because we didn't make a mistake. Something else. You'll see."
It's a sad thing to say but if a modded melee map implements this and the dozen or so changes the community has unanimously been requesting since launch, I'm not looking back.
For all the people accusing Blizzard of not knowing how to design a good game, so many of the same people are being damn clueless about game design. Sen honestly might as well have asked "will you please redesign SC2 from the ground up?" Changing the way units move would only be the beginning, then you have to change nearly every unit, spell, map, and perhaps even build times, etc. Throw all the balance testing that was done during beta into the trash. Throw all the balance tweaks after release into the trash. Throw all the work the pro scene has done to learn the game into the trash. Start it all from the beginning, that is exactly what this would take.
So it's nice that Blizzard might have something up their sleeve in terms of pathing, but it is also extremely foolish to expect a "better" answer from them. If they actually did listen to the whims of some of you guys, it would completely destroy the game.
At some point people are going to have to realize that making SC2 more and more like BW is not what the game needs to be successful in esports, and is not good for the game. Quite the opposite - it would be terrible for the game, the less drastic the changes are, the better off it will be. Because it is already very successful as an esport, and outside of Korea far more people enjoy watching SC2 than BW and that is fact.
Once you look past the relative differences between BW and SC2, the one thing BW had that was vital to it's success was stability and that Blizzard left it well enough alone.
On June 16 2011 01:35 Treemonkeys wrote: For all the people accusing Blizzard of not knowing how to design a good game, so many of the same people are being damn clueless about game design. Sen honestly might as well have asked "will you please redesign SC2 from the ground up?" Changing the way units move would only be the beginning, then you have to change nearly every unit, spell, map, and perhaps even build times, etc. Throw all the balance testing that was done during beta into the trash. Throw all the balance tweaks after release into the trash. Throw all the work the pro scene has done to learn the game into the trash. Start it all from the beginning, that is exactly what this would take.
Blizzard certainly knows how to design a good game, but that doesn't mean they get everything perfect out of the starting gates. It also certainly would be a monumental change, but that's why people are recommending it for Heart of the Swarm. All those things you listed (balance tweaks, pro scene, etc.) are going to happen anyway once the expansion comes out, as players adjust to added/adjusted/removed units, new maps, etc. People will have to re-learn the game at the pro level, and Blizzard will almost guaranteed have to come out with new patches to balance these changes.
Given this reality, it would be better to also fix army clumping while you're at it. Better to do it sooner than later if you're going to do it at all. Either that or leave things as they are and let Blizzard continue to nerf AoE into the ground and have the community constantly complain about AoE units like the colossus. If we're talking about e-sports, I think the latter option shouldn't be an option at all.
On June 16 2011 01:35 Treemonkeys wrote: So it's nice that Blizzard might have something up their sleeve in terms of pathing, but it is also extremely foolish to expect a "better" answer from them. If they actually did listen to the whims of some of you guys, it would completely destroy the game.
This is a baseless and ridiculous statement. Blizzard's done a lot of listening to the community and pro players, and have even implemented some popular suggestions either in the form of features or balance changes.
On June 16 2011 01:35 Treemonkeys wrote: At some point people are going to have to realize that making SC2 more and more like BW is not what the game needs to be successful in esports, and is not good for the game. Quite the opposite - it would be terrible for the game, the less drastic the changes are, the better off it will be. Because it is already very successful as an esport, and outside of Korea far more people enjoy watching SC2 than BW and that is fact.
Once you look past the relative differences between BW and SC2, the one thing BW had that was vital to it's success was stability and that Blizzard left it well enough alone.
People aren't just asking to "make SC2 more and more like BW". There have been a number of comparisons to other games regarding army formations and pathing: SC:BW, WC3, Company of Heroes, etc. These games are being used as examples of what people want to see in terms of how armies move as a group.
A lot of balance changes and bug fixes for StarCraft in a 1-year time span after release, followed by additional balance changes over years. Check out patch 1.11b, released in 2004:
Fixed a bug that allowed SCV's to heal Marines.
O_O! Uh....
I'd also like to note that StarCraft 2 is still within its first year of being on the market. This game is new, treat it like a new game instead of comparing it to to the same level of a game that was already patched and balanced over the course of years, with stability only coming many years afterward.
This would decrease the skill cap imo. Because the way things are now players have to split the units themselves, which gives the potential of very fun micro games. Just take the game where we saw real marinesplitting in the GSL (MKP vs some zerg) - that was darn awesome to watch. And as the players continues to develop we'll see more and more of this. Escpecially in TvT you'll see that players have become alot better at avoiding splash damage, which makes the games more fun to play/watch.
On June 15 2011 13:45 StarMoon wrote: "I wish it was like broodwar; because then the gameplay would be more like broodwar in this element"
"I liked the pacing and unit movement in broodwar and the more fluid movement in sc2 seems alien to me and I dislike it, therefore we should change it."
I'm sorry but this is honestly how I read your OP, despite not referencing BW much it really seems to me that you just don't like it because it is different.
I have never had any issue with telling what units were what or what they were doing; the game is designed to be faster-paced; splash units are strong but the game is balanced around that atm (although they still seem to be playing with infestors).
The only thing that really bothered me was that sometimes units would get stuck in a clump and go with it even if you didnt want them to (they weren't ordered to move); I've had my unsieged tanks run along with my marines before for instance. This concern isn't even mentioned in your OP.
Why is this good for e-sports, unless you propose that anything like BW in anyway is good for esports because BW itself is/was? Or maybe longer games = better for esports for some reason?
I don't want to go back to 1990s unit pathing. Hell even the pathing in HoN gets on my nerves sometimes.
This post made my brain hurt. Please refrain from posting in this thread, people are attempting serious discussion here.
On topic. This change would be great for sc2, but the balance of many units would have to be re-worked. Examples: Baneling, Colossus, Tank, Infestor.......
I don't think people get it, perhaps its too hard to imagine that units having dynamic movement doesnt mean they have to be retarded. It just means that if you spread them out beforehand they would stay spread out, units would still clump up on chokes only because they are forced to.
On June 16 2011 04:45 Aggnog wrote: I don't think people get it, perhaps its too hard to imagine that units having dynamic movement doesnt mean they have to be retarded. It just means that if you spread them out beforehand they would stay spread out, units would still clump up on chokes only because they are forced to.
Well said. Then again, most of the people who post on these forums are brain dead I think...
On June 16 2011 00:46 Sakray wrote: That's kinda cool, but it will make some units to become useless. Like colossus : it'll be able to hit only one, maybe 2 units, nearly the same for tanks. But it will drastically increase the effectivness of banelings, 'cause it'll be easier to send them in the middle of the other army, so they will splash more units. This change would force huge balancing patch, I think it's the major problem.
Then they shouldnt release HotS. Now THAT would recquire some balance patches.
On June 16 2011 04:28 stormfoxSC wrote: Blizzard certainly knows how to design a good game, but that doesn't mean they get everything perfect out of the starting gates. It also certainly would be a monumental change, but that's why people are recommending it for Heart of the Swarm. All those things you listed (balance tweaks, pro scene, etc.) are going to happen anyway once the expansion comes out, as players adjust to added/adjusted/removed units, new maps, etc. People will have to re-learn the game at the pro level, and Blizzard will almost guaranteed have to come out with new patches to balance these changes.
There is a huge difference between adding in a small amount of units and upgrades and completely changing how all units function from the ground up - while also adding in new units and upgrades. Though even the expansions themselves will not be good for the game at the pro level, unless they new units are just that good in terms of skill ceiling and entertainment value.
On June 16 2011 04:28 stormfoxSC wrote: Blizzard certainly knows how to design a good game, but that doesn't mean they get everything perfect out of the starting gates. It also certainly would be a monumental change, but that's why people are recommending it for Heart of the Swarm. All those things you listed (balance tweaks, pro scene, etc.) are going to happen anyway once the expansion comes out, as players adjust to added/adjusted/removed units, new maps, etc. People will have to re-learn the game at the pro level, and Blizzard will almost guaranteed have to come out with new patches to balance these changes.
There is a huge difference between adding in a small amount of units and upgrades and completely changing how all units function from the ground up - while also adding in new units and upgrades. Though even the expansions themselves will not be good for the game at the pro level, unless they new units are just that good in terms of skill ceiling and entertainment value.
You're over-exaggerating how much of a change dynamic pathing is in terms of balance. It's not changing how units function from the ground up. Some other people have mentioned exactly what is being asked here. Let me quote one such post for you:
On June 16 2011 04:45 Aggnog wrote: I don't think people get it, perhaps its too hard to imagine that units having dynamic movement doesnt mean they have to be retarded. It just means that if you spread them out beforehand they would stay spread out, units would still clump up on chokes only because they are forced to.
Having spread-out armies retain their spread until terrain forces them to clump (e.g. funnelling into choke points) isn't a devastating from-the-ground-up restructuring of core unit function. In the OP are screenshots of a simple Galaxy Editor mod that managed to pull it off.
The benefits for implementing this have already been listed numerous times in this thread. The detriments are minimal, especially when you consider that top-level pro players currently babysit their armies to manually de-clump them after moving them 5 feet, yet that hasn't broken game balance. Doing nothing will just see AoE in SC2 continue to get get nerfed, like it consistently has since release.
On June 16 2011 05:25 sc2olorin wrote: It was just so discouraging to hear Dustin Browder's response to a question from Sen regarding this issue to the effect of "Go back to Brood War."
I didn't even watch any BW before SC2 started popping up on my radar, but I still overwhelmingly support this change.
Without it, I question the longevity of SC2 as a spectator ESPORT.
It certainly looks prettier from the screenshot in the OP.
The player being able to have formations like in Age of Empires sounds pretty cool. I always liked that element in the series. Would destroy some of the in-battle micro possibilities in favour of advance preparation, though.
say i wanted my army to acutally clump together, the way this works, would it actually let me do that?
for example, i have a few marines, which are being attacked by zerglings, and i want my marines to clump up to reduce the surface area at which the zerglings are attacking, would this let me do that. or the same with zerlings attacking roaches?
and wouldn't protoss need massive buffs and changing since the way the race is played would need to change?
right now, players have the option of de-clumping their army and it requires immense micro to do that. i like this idea more than attacking an army and microing an army which is already split up. i think it takes something out of this game, and microing an army in this way i feel is a core component of how SC2 works.
i also feel a large army would take up way too much screen real estate and battles would feel like a coin flip. as of right now, the person with better army shape in relation to whether they're at a choke point or anything along those lines, determines who win the battles, and i would not want the skill requires to manage splitting and organizing an army in this manner to go away, since the micro required to do this is skill which can be infinitely improved upon.
this is how i feel, and i didn't play BW so this is my opinion on how i feel SC2 as a game would change. forgive any spelling and grammar mistakes, or any repetion in the points i make.
On June 14 2011 23:47 RemrafGrez wrote: Leave it alone obviously. Would take the game back to beta for years.
No it wouldnt.. even then the first expansion hasn't even hit and for a game so young players could adapt. It's what we say after every patch and every expansion.
On June 16 2011 06:11 starmeat_ wrote: i have a question.
say i wanted my army to acutally clump together, the way this works, would it actually let me do that?
for example, i have a few marines, which are being attacked by zerglings, and i want my marines to clump up to reduce the surface area at which the zerglings are attacking, would this let me do that. or the same with zerlings attacking roaches?
and wouldn't protoss need massive buffs and changing since the way the race is played would need to change?
right now, players have the option of de-clumping their army and it requires immense micro to do that. i like this idea more than attacking an army and microing an army which is already split up. i think it takes something out of this game, and microing an army in this way i feel is a core component of how SC2 works.
i also feel a large army would take up way too much screen real estate and battles would feel like a coin flip. as of right now, the person with better army shape in relation to whether they're at a choke point or anything along those lines, determines who win the battles, and i would not want the skill requires to manage splitting and organizing an army in this manner to go away, since the micro required to do this is skill which can be infinitely improved upon.
this is how i feel, and i didn't play BW so this is my opinion on how i feel SC2 as a game would change. forgive any spelling and grammar mistakes, or any repetion in the points i make.
The coin flip comes with the current implementation of army clumping. I go in more detail in one of my previous posts:
Right now, Blizzard's approach to the issue has been to nerf AoE. I just think it'd be better if the system didn't inherently overly-reward AoE thanks to army clumping, then AoE itself wouldn't have to be nerfed. On the flip side, things like the Protoss "death ball" and MMM balls would also be nerfed as a result, since there would be far less DPS in such a tightly compacted space.
Right now, you have this lop-sided result where these army balls crush everything with ease, and then AoE evaporates the army balls. It's not good for the game, and not good for e-sports IMO, when the situation completely reverses at the tip of a hat. It's the same reason why people complained about Terran > Protoss early game, while Protoss > Terran late game. Consequently, we saw Terran early game get nerfed a bit, while Protoss late game got slightly nerfed -- the right thing to do.
Also of concern is the level of micro necessary to de-clump your army. There's nothing wrong with having amazing micro and unit control, but the current army clumping forces you to babysit your army to de-clump them after moving every 5 feet. It makes it a lot harder to move your army around the map, since if you look away for half a second to attend to other things (such as macroing at home) you can suddenly receive an auto-loss because your army decided to clump and you got hit by some sick AoE damage, either incidentally or intentionally done by your opponent.
I'm going to use Brood War for an example, since it's clearly a successful e-sport that Blizzard wants SC2 to exceed. In pro-level games, you'll see armies move around the map constantly, looking for opportunities to bypass or flank their opponent. They can do this because they know when they receive that "we're under attack!" notification, their army won't be evaporated (or even near-evaporated) by the time they shoot back over to attend it.
Even SC2 pro games are okay in this regard until the AoE units come out. Then movement comes to a near-stand still aside from the occasional drop/harass, until one player decides to commit to an engagement. It's at that point where you'll see players stay put and spread out their armies, but don't dare to move around too much. As HawaiianPig put it on page 1: " I've always maintained that blob on blob action is a big part of why SC2 is... the way it is".
I never got into the SC:BW pro-scene, and only played the game casually. However, this past weekend I decided to watch Flash vs. ZerO in the ABC Mart MSL finals and I have to say... it was extremely entertaining. I really had to sit down and think what was so different from SC2, when it finally dawned on me: it was the army engagements, 100%. Nothing else is really different; you have your early game, Terran wall-off vs. Z, Z takes fast expo, etc. Maps aren't too far different in style anymore. Strategy concepts aren't wildly different, either.
I then go back and think on the most entertaining SC2 games I've watched. Games like MarineKing defeating Kyrix in the GSL Open Season 2. MVP vs. Bomber in the GSTL. These games featured armies being spread, army movement throughout the game, flanking, harass, etc. However, they still had occasional clumping fumbles that overly-rewarded AoE, be it siege tanks simply existing or banelings on a-move.
That's why I'm really putting an effort arguing in favour of the OP.
On June 16 2011 04:37 TheFisherman wrote: This would decrease the skill cap imo. Because the way things are now players have to split the units themselves, which gives the potential of very fun micro games. Just take the game where we saw real marinesplitting in the GSL (MKP vs some zerg) - that was darn awesome to watch. And as the players continues to develop we'll see more and more of this. Escpecially in TvT you'll see that players have become alot better at avoiding splash damage, which makes the games more fun to play/watch.
Buttomline, keep it as it is.
I already said this before but that's not what this is addressing.
If units clump less, then of course AoE will be increased, so you will still need to manually split your units up even more in order to not get owned. We're just talking about the "default".
On June 16 2011 06:11 starmeat_ wrote: i have a question.
say i wanted my army to acutally clump together, the way this works, would it actually let me do that?
for example, i have a few marines, which are being attacked by zerglings, and i want my marines to clump up to reduce the surface area at which the zerglings are attacking, would this let me do that. or the same with zerlings attacking roaches?
and wouldn't protoss need massive buffs and changing since the way the race is played would need to change?
right now, players have the option of de-clumping their army and it requires immense micro to do that. i like this idea more than attacking an army and microing an army which is already split up. i think it takes something out of this game, and microing an army in this way i feel is a core component of how SC2 works.
i also feel a large army would take up way too much screen real estate and battles would feel like a coin flip. as of right now, the person with better army shape in relation to whether they're at a choke point or anything along those lines, determines who win the battles, and i would not want the skill requires to manage splitting and organizing an army in this manner to go away, since the micro required to do this is skill which can be infinitely improved upon.
this is how i feel, and i didn't play BW so this is my opinion on how i feel SC2 as a game would change. forgive any spelling and grammar mistakes, or any repetion in the points i make.
In BW marines could clump up even more than in SC2, if you moved in small increments they would stay that way, though after a long journey they will start to spread out, making them extremely susceptible to zergling flanks.
You clump your army when you see an incoming zergling flank.
You declump when you see banelings.
You can only move in formation if they are in a magic box.
If they are bigger than the magic box they will spread out a lot especially after a long journey, so you have to keep an eye out for flanking. Lurkers still did tonnes of damage regardless, you had to line them up perfectly to stop them from getting owned by lurkers.
So instead of splitting micro, you now have clumping and splitting micro depending on the situation. However because of this you can make the radius even smaller allowing for more tactical choices. You can make your marines even more effective vs zerglings, but then banelings would become even more effective than they are now.
So basically the potential for both zerglings and banelings to do tonnes of damage is higher, but you have to be smarter about it. Marines are too strong early game, but they are too weak late game. This has a lot to do with the balling effect, mass early marines in BW could be killed off easily with zergling flanks, this is impossible because of auto-clumping in sc2.
Watching pros with just zerglings do three times as much damage as they should because they caught a bio army completely off guard is awesome to watch. This just doesn't happen in sc2 and sc2 really needs it. Its the exact reverse of marine vs baneling, where its cool to see the counter being "countered" by good control.
Now you will have marine split vs baneling, but ALSO zergling flanks vs marine.
Think about BW pathing like traffic lights and cars. When there's a red light, they stop and clump together, but when the light turns green, the cars don't move in sync. The first car moves, and then the second car starts moving once there's enough space etc...
So if you control your zerglings right you can tell them to fit in the spaces between the cars....
SC2 unit movement should be something like this, except of course with better AI. Cars won't suddenly glitch themselves. I wouldn't know though since units push each other out of the way....
i hope blizzard fix MOVMENT of the unites... conteps of BALL MMM deth ball is wery boring to whatch and to play... simply game dont look like strategy when unites are grouped in ball....
Is it weird that I don't want this to come out ? BW was a very hard game compared to SC2, always having to split your forces isn't still that hard if you see what you had to do in BW to play decently.
I've been reading some random pages in this thread, and tbh, as a SC2 player that has never ever played BW before I'd be happy with a change like this (I messed around with the SC2BW custom map and the pathing/clumping feels pretty awesome)
one thing I don't understand though is people claiming "But AoE will be so much weaker" - then how come siege tanks, lurkers and reavers were so powerfull in BW?
I've only read the first page but I don't want this. Assuming that AoE in the game is balanced around units clumping at the moment, it would be "buffed" to compensate for units moving spread out if this was implemented. However, the worst-case scenario would still be that my units are clumped when being shot by AoE, especially on the already very tight SC2 maps. And lets not forget forcefields...
What I'm saying is I'd rather have the AoE in the game balanced around the worst-case scenario (units clumped) and then obtain something better by micro/extra effort than have it balanced around the best-case (units spread) and then have the now super-OP worst-case imposed on me by my opponent due to positioning/forcefields. I'd rather be in charge of winning my games than just hope for my opponent to lose.
Forgetting the players perspective, I think from the lay users perspective, this would make spectating games much more interesting because it gives everyone a sense of the how big an army is. An end game Toss death ball or a maxed zerg army would actually be a sight to behold instead of a small ball of clumped units where lings run underneath my Ultras and broodlords making the army look pitifully small.
On July 12 2011 21:00 Meancookie wrote: I've been reading some random pages in this thread, and tbh, as a SC2 player that has never ever played BW before I'd be happy with a change like this (I messed around with the SC2BW custom map and the pathing/clumping feels pretty awesome)
one thing I don't understand though is people claiming "But AoE will be so much weaker" - then how come siege tanks, lurkers and reavers were so powerfull in BW?
We have no lurkers or reavers now and stats of tanks were very different exactly for the reason of units being spread. Now it's quantity over damage. The whole concept of AoE damage in the game would have to be rebalanced if you changed the way groups move around by default, I don't see this happening any time soon.
On July 12 2011 21:00 Meancookie wrote: I've been reading some random pages in this thread, and tbh, as a SC2 player that has never ever played BW before I'd be happy with a change like this (I messed around with the SC2BW custom map and the pathing/clumping feels pretty awesome)
one thing I don't understand though is people claiming "But AoE will be so much weaker" - then how come siege tanks, lurkers and reavers were so powerfull in BW?
We have no lurkers or reavers now and stats of tanks were very different exactly for the reason of units being spread. Now it's quantity over damage. The whole concept of AoE damage in the game would have to be rebalanced if you changed the way groups move around by default, I don't see this happening any time soon.
what I meant was: if they made it so AoE worked fine in the dynamic unit movement model, they can just tweak the stats on the aoe units a small bit from what we have now basically it's not like "aoe will become useless" or anything
The unit clumping AI is the prime reason of sub-par unit design.Colossus,low damage siege tank,infestor FG,thor,etc The one unit that fell victim to the AI is the Thor however.I think Blizzard intended thors to be good anti-muta/phoenix but people learned how to magic box and avoid the unit clumping and,correct me if I'm wrong I'm not a terran player,but the thor is like the worst terran unit right now in my eyes and has literally little to no critical use,yes you can build one and its a nice supplement,but you can rather throw down 3 rax with reactors for the same price and have all that a thor can do with marines just much more effective.
this thread is like a horror movie villian, it always comes back out of its graves. And units still clumped in bw like crazy, but in smaller groups (because you could only select 12 units), and most of the time one shot was enough to kill a group of 12 clumpd units. Dragoons were the lucky guys being so stupid and strong that one aoe boom only got like 1-3 xD . Just imagine a colossi shooting heat seeker missiles (not seeker missiles), that are so fast only lings could run away. And it has a storage of 5 and the missiles cost 15 mins. Thats a reaver, 5 ravens in one only backdraw is that its slow as a thor.
In general blizzard would only need to reduce the maximum selection to 12 again an tada superior bw movement.
I guess people only want to get their free wins back from when they got units because of the bad ai out of position because they run around in a straight line after a few seconds. In bw aoes were weak when you got an army out of posi but the rest was super strong, now aoes are strong but the rest is weak. Not much has changed there. People still stop before the opponents army and split no one wanting to make the first move. All that i see that changed is that armys aren't that badly out of position anymore when moving. But they are still easy to rip appart when done right. Just not achieved via an bwish 9xa click
Like other people mentioned earlier in this thread, just use the functions that were implemented in Warcraft 3.
A button that allows you to determine if armies retain formation and/or wait for slower units to arrive at the same time, or just moving at their own speeds. This way you can decide for yourself instead of being forced into type A or type B movement.
It is a lot nicer to be able to set up your army the way you want to, set them to move out and not having to constantly fight the clumping (even with many control groups it still screws with you). For people saying that pro players will get better apm and micro better accordingly, I have only one thing to say: It becomes impossible. You would have to reach inhumane APM levels to go anywhere beyond what the very best players are accomplishing right now. It is just a natural limit.
On July 02 2012 08:13 Bommes wrote: Well, I could start clarifying what the value exactly does and maybe upload a little video and some pictures. But basically it just defines what it says, up to what distance a unit group stays in the formation that you issued the order to.
Lets say you have 3 Marines in a specific formation:
As far as I understand it as soon as you issue an order to them they get a personal region that defines the "inside" of this specific unit group. Now lets say Formation Diameter has a value of 6 (default value for melee maps), it means they will hold their specific formation (that means the distance and angles between themselves) as long as they get issued an order that is less than 6 range away from the center of their region.
So lets say you order them to a spot with range 3 away it will look like this with the formation holding:
Now if you set Formation Diameter to a high value it just means that whatever happens every unit group that gets an order will always hold the formation. If they are clumped up before they will stay clumped up, and if they are spread out (which should be way more often the case) they will stay spread out.
If you issue an order to inside the region that defines the unit group (practically if you click in between the units) they will automatically all run to the point with no formation standing. I think thats similar to how SCBW units behave.
Of course that means that it is way more complicated to do difficult unit movements the more spread out the units are. Because they will stay in the formation they were before. So you will automatically have no choice but babysit your units way more and you can't have too many different unit types in the same control groups without messing all the positioning up. Which I personally think would be cool to see/use, but I'm not sure everyone would like it. And it could complicate a lot of things a lot, I haven't tested how it behaves if you use it in a serious melee match Should be tested.
Starcraft 2 uses something called "Steering Behaviors" that allows for the fluid unit movement you observe. Steering Behaviors are well known and are used in a broad variety of applications (ranging from automated cars to video games to unmanned aircraft).
The reason units clump in Sc2 is that when controlled in a selection group, the Sc2 engine applies two steering behaviors: Alignment and Cohesion. Alignment steers each unit to the average heading of the group. Cohesion steers each unit to the average position of the group. Between the two behaviors groups of units will A) clump together and B) move in a coordinated as a group.
In other words, the way that Sc2 clumps units is 100% intentional and by design. They could have (easily) added a behavior called Seperation which, when combined with the before-mentioned behaviors, would allow units to spread out more rather than clumping. But, they didn't, so its obvious they wanted units to clump like that (likely to add the extra micro challenge it provides).
EDIT: Here is a good overview of what Steering Bahaviors are: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/. It provides a nice visual example that shows how fish behave.
I love how the two posters above me failed to realize why this thread was resurrected.
If we really have that value, then I say someone go ahead and throw lets say the tsl4 map pool with that value set to like 10k so they never autoclump on eu/na/kr and have the community run games with it. It's a map value so we could easily just it in every tournament out there, thus probably forcing blizz to adapt.
this would be a great improvement, aesthetically and game play wise. Less fire power means longer fights means the better players is more likely to win because of more time to micro your units. Longer and more spread out fights is way more fun to watch as a spectator and looks a lot more natural.
If you want to have the perfect game, you've gotta do what's necessary, if that involves this change and having to change a lot of values of units? So be it. Perfection takes time and work.
Im not sure Im getting how this would improve gameplay? It would look nicer, sure. And there would have to be rebalancing, sure. But how would this improve the game? As far as I can tell from the OP, longer battles is the only thing. But then again, this isn't WC3, were battles lasted for ages. SC1/2 are high paced games, were split seconds can change the tide of a battle. In BW units formed endless lines when moving somewhere. Not sure if that is better. And in battles they clumped up anyways...
I do not think this is a good idea at all. I mean this would completely destroy the PvT matchup. With Terran having such incredible amounts of DPS, if you basically already presplit the marine marauder ball, it would be completely disastourous. It would also not bode very well for PvZ. Roaches vs anything would become a really bad battle to take, because really you want all your roaches hugging your opponent, concaves in the general sense of the word, do not work with roaches, and if you were to spread up the roach ball, you make them really ineffective. The game is designed around the pathing, you take or change that broken game.
On July 03 2012 16:52 RodrigoX wrote: I do not think this is a good idea at all. I mean this would completely destroy the PvT matchup. With Terran having such incredible amounts of DPS, if you basically already presplit the marine marauder ball, it would be completely disastourous. It would also not bode very well for PvZ. Roaches vs anything would become a really bad battle to take, because really you want all your roaches hugging your opponent, concaves in the general sense of the word, do not work with roaches, and if you were to spread up the roach ball, you make them really ineffective. The game is designed around the pathing, you take or change that broken game.
Of course there would have to be some changes and buffs to AOE too but I doubt it would be that huge of an imbalance. Terran wouldn't get an increase in DPS since there would be more units in the back too that wouldn't be in the fight whereas they would in they were clumped up and zealots should also be more effective vs spread out units rather than vs a clump of them.
i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
I doubt blizzard would ever admit that they screw up and add this change. But I would love to see this too. It looks so much cleaner. You can see every single individual units. Is there a custom map with this mechanic we can play and test it ?
On July 03 2012 18:10 bhfberserk wrote: I doubt blizzard would ever admit that they screw up and add this change. But I would love to see this too. It looks so much cleaner. You can see every single individual units. Is there a custom map with this mechanic we can play and test it ?
Yeah when people asked blizzard about they completly avoid the point and say "no we won't make the unit pathing worse". It's obvious that you can't have a pathing like broodwar in a modern game like sc2, but clumping is a terrible and cheap solution to the problem of pathing in a rts game. The fun thing is that they obviously realize how terrible it looks because all of their videos are made with perfectly spread armies. The game would be so much better with a better movement, but they did not adress it in HOTS so they will never do it.
It reminds me of FPS game, were a good movement system is one of the most important thing to have a competitive esport game, because the game has to be fun simply moving around the map. I think it should be the same for starcraft, simply controling your army around the map should feel good, and right now it's just boring.
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
When Dustin answers to this thread by saying they won't make the pathing worse or BW-like either he is not that smart, or he is just avoiding the question because dealing with it would mean a lot of rebalancing.
The pathing being suggested here should not have anything to do with BW's. It should still be fluid, and units clump when they stop. But when moving, they shouldn't be so tight. It looks completely unnatural.
Moving in formation is pretty hard in itself, but moving like we see in SC2 ?.... The units don't even have space to stretch their legs. They look like they've been put in a disco and glued to each other. By the looks of moving in SC2 the units should all be tripping on each other.
Sadly, since for now there's not much competition to SC2, there's not much we can do except complain. If there was some competition, bad publicity and decreasing numbers of players are a great motivator.
On July 03 2012 18:10 bhfberserk wrote: I doubt blizzard would ever admit that they screw up and add this change. But I would love to see this too. It looks so much cleaner. You can see every single individual units. Is there a custom map with this mechanic we can play and test it ?
All blizzard needs to do is to increase the "magic box" of certain unit types. It's already in the game and usable with smaller unit counts. It would add so much more control over the way your units move, and it would add a whole new "tactical layer" to the game. Right now the Magic box for terran bio is big enough for a 3x3 matrix of marauders with enough space between them to avoid Siege splash.
On July 03 2012 18:37 lysergic wrote: *looks at pictures of 'dynamically clumped' marines that are cost effective vs banelings/fungal/storm/colossus without even needing to micro*
*correctly assumes this year old thread was brought back and fully supported by terrans*
am i the only person annoyed that everything i look at on TL is somehow yet another terran whine thread?
Its still a HUGE improvement, would love to see that implemented, and blizzard MIGHT just MIGHT do something like this if they feel like it hurts the longevity of their game, and if you ask me it does.
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
What you already can do is to split your army in small pairs of maybe 9 and use the existing small magic box for those small groups. With carefully placed move commands around corners you can move around with a split up army. You just need lots of hotkeys and lots of move commands to do that. It should be possible to do that with a bit of training. I am not sure if it is worth it.
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
What you already can do is to split your army in small pairs of maybe 9 and use the existing small magic box for those small groups. With carefully placed move commands around corners you can move around with a split up army. You just need lots of hotkeys and lots of move commands to do that. It should be possible to do that with a bit of training. I am not sure if it is worth it.
I would HATE if the game was like that, blizzard could have easily designed this game with "you can do this that is easy, but you can also do this that is slightly better, but takes way more skill".
I would definetly not take the game serisuly and I would definetly not play it, even out of protest for such retarded design.
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Rofl ... what a stupid argument for the simple reason that it implies that "dynamic unit movement" prevents microing and it also implies that splitting armies is the only micro there is. If that was the case only Terrans are microing atm (they are the usual victims of Baneling mass attacks), but we also have blink micro, burrow micro and general positioning micro as well.
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
What you already can do is to split your army in small pairs of maybe 9 and use the existing small magic box for those small groups. With carefully placed move commands around corners you can move around with a split up army. You just need lots of hotkeys and lots of move commands to do that. It should be possible to do that with a bit of training. I am not sure if it is worth it.
I would HATE if the game was like that, blizzard could have easily designed this game with "you can do this that is easy, but you can also do this that is slightly better, but takes way more skill".
I would definetly not take the game serisuly and I would definetly not play it, even out of protest for such retarded design.
I do not really understand your post. Just to clarify: What i wrote is in the game. There is a Magic box for ground units. Its just quite small. You can move with a pre split army if you move with small groups that fit into their individual small magic box. Just try for yourself. Two units will walk in formation until the spread is just too big. What i would like to see are bigger ground army magic boxes. That way players would have far more control over their units. It would increase the skill ceiling, because better players could control their army even better. Players would be able to clump up or move in a formation they created. It would add a new "tactical layer" to the game.
BTW: Thx Bommes, testing right now I guess it would also be great if you could upload the map to a normal map site so everyone could try it offline.
I don't think this would really benefit SC2 as an esport. The idea that units are prespread would not only force a huge metagame shift to not using as much splash, it would also reduce the difficulty of micro. Currently you have to split your units to effectively engage a splash damage army, which would be eliminated with this change. Also, good positioning wouldn't be rewarded very much since the units would clumsily be "tripping" over each other. I feel this would also make Ultras go away again, since the problem with lings blocking them from engaging would be all the more prevalent.
It seems to me that a fairly high percentage of the posters here, are primarly interested in esthetics/looking more natural. While this certainly has its value, gameplay is a far bigger concern for me, and should be for the pro scene. And I just dont see this change doinng anything for the playability of the game. Any thoughts?
I just wish everyone whining about micro and splitting would realise that a proportional buff to AOE radius and maybe even to damage should be added with this as well.
After playing around on "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" i have to say that i really like it. It gives the player a far better control over how the single units move. Every race can profit from that. Its always a balance between DPS density and vulnerability to splash DMG. The army movement feels far more natural.
On July 03 2012 19:48 gronnelg wrote: It seems to me that a fairly high percentage of the posters here, are primarly interested in esthetics/looking more natural. While this certainly has its value, gameplay is a far bigger concern for me, and should be for the pro scene. And I just dont see this change doinng anything for the playability of the game. Any thoughts?
It would change the pro scene for the better, the armies would be more spread out which would mean that deathballs wouldn't just be 2 huge clumps a-moving into each other which would mean that it would easier to micro seperate parts of your whole army throughout the engagement.
On July 03 2012 19:48 gronnelg wrote: It seems to me that a fairly high percentage of the posters here, are primarly interested in esthetics/looking more natural. While this certainly has its value, gameplay is a far bigger concern for me, and should be for the pro scene. And I just dont see this change doinng anything for the playability of the game. Any thoughts?
It would change the pro scene for the better, the armies would be more spread out which would mean that deathballs wouldn't just be 2 huge clumps a-moving into each other which would mean that it would easier to micro seperate parts of your whole army throughout the engagement.
Wouldn't you just end up with two deathballs a-moving each other, but not being as clumped up?
I really like the idea of enlarging the magic box to keep units in the same formation when they are moving. We have to find a way to change the developer's mindset "we won't change the pathing" It's so simple and the change is so big
On July 03 2012 17:51 ajkayken wrote: i think the REAL point of this thread is once a super player like flash comes along and can keep his army pre-split while moving across the map and constantly hold positioning and re-splitting as his army moves across the map
my god. that will be unstoppable
think about it, players with INSANE MECHANICS should ALREADY be able to do what the OP described, except no patch would be needed, they can do it RIGHT NOW, just it requires insane mechanics
Even though this isn't the main point of it all.
No they can't, this is something that basically would require inhuman actions. You would have to spread each single unit from each other and you'd have to do it continiously which no human will ever be able to do even if they tried for a hundred years
What you already can do is to split your army in small pairs of maybe 9 and use the existing small magic box for those small groups. With carefully placed move commands around corners you can move around with a split up army. You just need lots of hotkeys and lots of move commands to do that. It should be possible to do that with a bit of training. I am not sure if it is worth it.
I would HATE if the game was like that, blizzard could have easily designed this game with "you can do this that is easy, but you can also do this that is slightly better, but takes way more skill".
I would definetly not take the game serisuly and I would definetly not play it, even out of protest for such retarded design.
I do not really understand your post. Just to clarify: What i wrote is in the game. There is a Magic box for ground units. Its just quite small. You can move with a pre split army if you move with small groups that fit into their individual small magic box. Just try for yourself. Two units will walk in formation until the spread is just too big. What i would like to see are bigger ground army magic boxes. That way players would have far more control over their units. It would increase the skill ceiling, because better players could control their army even better. Players would be able to clump up or move in a formation they created. It would add a new "tactical layer" to the game.
BTW: Thx Bommes, testing right now I guess it would also be great if you could upload the map to a normal map site so everyone could try it offline.
Yea I can see why you woudnt understand my post lol. I just said that that would take to much work for to little payoff. And I cant really take that seriusly. And no matter how much I would want to improve I would never do this and probably stop playing. I dont want to support an e-sports tittle with that kind of design
LoL this is from the same devs that brought us this all this:
Widow Mine: Rather than re-introduce the spider mine the devs created a new mine that is best used alone out in the field. This mine takes up supply thus pulling supply from the ball of death. The Widow Mine also does not combo well with the siege tank since if the tank blows up the unit before the mine detonates it is wasted. On top of all this the Widow Mine encourages enemy players to break up their deathballs after the mine latches on a unit inside the deathball.
Building Attacking Nydus Worm: "Because there’s scenarios with Zerg right now where the Mutalisk raiding is glorious, and then they shut it down, and you’re like, “I guess I’m done raiding.” And that kind of – that’s sounds fun, we want to split up the armies, spread everybody out, get everybody doing different stuff and make the deathballs a little smaller" http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/1160-dustin-browder-interview-mlg-anaheim-2012
Tempest: The Tempest takes a different approach to pulling units out of the deathball. Its incredible range means it doesn't have to physically be in the ball to contribute its fire power. This range is described as more "strategic" than "tactical" giving presence to an entire region of the map.
Oracle: Like the Widow Mine the Oracle takes up supply pulling supply away from the Deathball and like the Building Attacking Nydus Worm the Oracle is a raider which creates mini-battles away from the main death ball.
Rather than actually addressing the issue, they bring in completely uninteresting units and ultimately difficult to balancee, that are bandages.
On July 03 2012 18:55 Bommes wrote: Uploaded "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" on the EU server for everyone who wants to try it out.
dafag?!
Is that a troll post, I tried it and it doesnt change anything.
tries to separate your army and then move out, you will see the difference
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Nah, I actually like the deathball. Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Use your imba apm and get an advantage over us that can't marine split vs banelings.
no, now you can use your APM to make the death ball, instead of having the Ai doing it for you
I think there are better solutions to the problem of clumping. For example they could just introduce something as formation movement. Spreading is not too hard now but it's too difficult to move over the map while staying spread. I don't think they'll change anything though
The difference is actually really subtle now after having tried it but I think it would be so great to implement this and buff AOE because it's still really easy to get clumped up but easy to stay spread too if you just focus on it which would mean that the constant fear and danger of AOE would force you to keep it spread.
I would still prefer something that keeps it even a bit more spread though than this
If you are trying out Daybreak Dynamic Movement, please consider recording and uploading your game to youtube for our viewing pleasure. Even better would be a couple of pros playing.
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Nah, I actually like the deathball. Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Use your imba apm and get an advantage over us that can't marine split vs banelings.
Deathballs are stupid and terrible for spectating. A lot of units benefit from the clumping of the deathball. It removes surface area from melee units (zerglings, zealots, ultralisks), making them less efficient. Ranged units in general are very powerful because of how many can fire simultaneously. Especially marines vs anything that flies. (Mutalisks, Banshees, Phoenixes, Voidrays, Interceptors, etc.) And that whole jazz about fighting the UI in BW where we now fight it in SC2 from clumping.
If splitting is really the ultimate solution then colossus/high templar/fungal/banelings/tanks should slowly become inefficient as more players split and get better at splitting, and Terrans especially should slowly stop whining about them. (I'm not implying that you're whining)
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Rofl ... what a stupid argument for the simple reason that it implies that "dynamic unit movement" prevents microing and it also implies that splitting armies is the only micro there is. If that was the case only Terrans are microing atm (they are the usual victims of Baneling mass attacks), but we also have blink micro, burrow micro and general positioning micro as well.
So the only micro that exists comes from stalkers and roaches? I don't think positioning is micro intensive as much as simply being aware of your position. Not that I disagree with you, but your argument is kinda stupid too.
On July 03 2012 19:56 gronnelg wrote: Wouldn't you just end up with two deathballs a-moving each other, but not being as clumped up?
Yes, I think it will, but it will also mean multiple other things. I know people hate the reference to Broodwar, but Im going to reference to it anyway for the battles, just so people get some kind of a picture (or can look up a picture ). In Broodwar, there are also some variety of deathballs, for example in TvP. 'Deathballs' will be spread far enough however that there is plenty of room for micro, plenty of room for movement, plenty of room for retreating and making strategic decisions. Because of this, you can actually retreat, without having to lose at least half or 75% of your army which leads to you immediatly losing the game if you went ahead with a deathball vs deathball battle, and lost. (which is the case with the current sc2 deathball vs deathball scenario). However, it changes even more. Because units are more spread out, the damage per second at the moment the armies clash is far less. This is why there is more room for micro, movement and decisions. Another effect, is that smaller armies will be usefull again! Instead of being instantly annihilated by the blob, the army size that is smaller can actually do some damage to the larger army, because not all of the dps of the larger army is at the front of the battle. Smaller armies could still exchange unfavorably, but some units (Like tanks), have more firing time because they will launch a couple of shots, annihilate the first couple of units and be reloaded by the time the rest of the opponents army is near them. In the current situation, tanks fire once or twice, but since all the units are at the front they get overwhelmed within seconds. Because smaller armies are not almost inherently mean a waste of money, it is not useless for a player to attack multiple fronts. this means that the defending player can do two things: 1. Keep his army as a deathball and try to kill each group one by one. This will ofcourse work, and will kill the other army with somewhat of an advantage, but the other small groups still damage his economy. Since the player with the smaller armies all over the map wouldnt gain an immense disadvantage with engaging with smaller forces, he would have an ecomonic lead, still some forces, and could likely win the game. 2. Split up his forces to defend, counter attack, secure ground (yes, securing ground would be a lot more usefull and doable again). Attention of the two players would be needed everywhere, everywhere would need to be micro'd. Even with the new Hearth of the Swarm this would be great, since the new widow mine could secure ground against the smaller forces invading it.
I'm sure many of you already saw the other thread, but just like what Bommes uploaded for EU, I've uploaded "MMDaybreak" to NA. If you have a good competitive match and are highish level, please consider uploading a replay. Videos can then be made and put on youtube, for others to see what games look like with this change.
Buff all splash damage by 50% except thor aa, double the aoe on siege and baneling splash and increase ultralisk speed by 20%. Some maps might need to be rescaled as well, but I think that would be a good starting point for further balancing.
On July 03 2012 19:56 gronnelg wrote: Wouldn't you just end up with two deathballs a-moving each other, but not being as clumped up?
Yes, I think it will, but it will also mean multiple other things. I know people hate the reference to Broodwar, but Im going to reference to it anyway for the battles, just so people get some kind of a picture (or can look up a picture ). In Broodwar, there are also some variety of deathballs, for example in TvP. 'Deathballs' will be spread far enough however that there is plenty of room for micro, plenty of room for movement, plenty of room for retreating and making strategic decisions. Because of this, you can actually retreat, without having to lose at least half or 75% of your army which leads to you immediatly losing the game if you went ahead with a deathball vs deathball battle, and lost. (which is the case with the current sc2 deathball vs deathball scenario). However, it changes even more. Because units are more spread out, the damage per second at the moment the armies clash is far less. This is why there is more room for micro, movement and decisions. Another effect, is that smaller armies will be usefull again! Instead of being instantly annihilated by the blob, the army size that is smaller can actually do some damage to the larger army, because not all of the dps of the larger army is at the front of the battle. Smaller armies could still exchange unfavorably, but some units (Like tanks), have more firing time because they will launch a couple of shots, annihilate the first couple of units and be reloaded by the time the rest of the opponents army is near them. In the current situation, tanks fire once or twice, but since all the units are at the front they get overwhelmed within seconds. Because smaller armies are not almost inherently mean a waste of money, it is not useless for a player to attack multiple fronts. this means that the defending player can do two things: 1. Keep his army as a deathball and try to kill each group one by one. This will ofcourse work, and will kill the other army with somewhat of an advantage, but the other small groups still damage his economy. Since the player with the smaller armies all over the map wouldnt gain an immense disadvantage with engaging with smaller forces, he would have an ecomonic lead, still some forces, and could likely win the game. 2. Split up his forces to defend, counter attack, secure ground (yes, securing ground would be a lot more usefull and doable again). Attention of the two players would be needed everywhere, everywhere would need to be micro'd. Even with the new Hearth of the Swarm this would be great, since the new widow mine could secure ground against the smaller forces invading it.
These are the main parts that could make the game so much greater imo.
Not losing your entire army in a single bad decision by making an engagement and also being able to hurt larger armies with smaller ones
On July 03 2012 18:55 Bommes wrote: Uploaded "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" on the EU server for everyone who wants to try it out.
dafag?!
Is that a troll post, I tried it and it doesnt change anything.
tries to separate your army and then move out, you will see the difference
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Nah, I actually like the deathball. Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Use your imba apm and get an advantage over us that can't marine split vs banelings.
no, now you can use your APM to make the death ball, instead of having the Ai doing it for you
Or you can use your APM to split your units, instead of having the AI do it for you. Herpderp.
The AI doesn't split it for you, it only helps you keep it split with this while at the moment it clumps up again in a single command.
And this would come with an AOE buff as well so you'd have to keep using APM and make sure to still keep them split
On July 03 2012 20:39 pzea469 wrote: I'm sure many of you already saw the other thread, but just like what Bommes uploaded for EU, I've uploaded "MMDaybreak" to NA. If you have a good competitive match and are highish level, please consider uploading a replay. Videos can then be made and put on youtube, for others to see what games look like with this change.
I searched for "MMDaybreak" on NA and was unable to find the map. Any reason why? It might just be an error on my part.
You guys should please stop using references to Broodwar, because as we know, when the Blizzard guys hear the word "Broodwar" in any sentence they automatically say something along the lines it being a great game, that you can go play it if you want, and completely outstepping the question asked or the core of the subject.
this is stupid. learn to magicbox/split marines. This can be done ingame it just takes more skill/APM. there is also a trick with patrol move to make the units bump into each other and split appart.
On July 03 2012 19:56 gronnelg wrote: Wouldn't you just end up with two deathballs a-moving each other, but not being as clumped up?
Yes, I think it will, but it will also mean multiple other things. I know people hate the reference to Broodwar, but Im going to reference to it anyway for the battles, just so people get some kind of a picture (or can look up a picture ). In Broodwar, there are also some variety of deathballs, for example in TvP. 'Deathballs' will be spread far enough however that there is plenty of room for micro, plenty of room for movement, plenty of room for retreating and making strategic decisions. Because of this, you can actually retreat, without having to lose at least half or 75% of your army which leads to you immediatly losing the game if you went ahead with a deathball vs deathball battle, and lost. (which is the case with the current sc2 deathball vs deathball scenario). However, it changes even more. Because units are more spread out, the damage per second at the moment the armies clash is far less. This is why there is more room for micro, movement and decisions. Another effect, is that smaller armies will be usefull again! Instead of being instantly annihilated by the blob, the army size that is smaller can actually do some damage to the larger army, because not all of the dps of the larger army is at the front of the battle. Smaller armies could still exchange unfavorably, but some units (Like tanks), have more firing time because they will launch a couple of shots, annihilate the first couple of units and be reloaded by the time the rest of the opponents army is near them. In the current situation, tanks fire once or twice, but since all the units are at the front they get overwhelmed within seconds. Because smaller armies are not almost inherently mean a waste of money, it is not useless for a player to attack multiple fronts. this means that the defending player can do two things: 1. Keep his army as a deathball and try to kill each group one by one. This will ofcourse work, and will kill the other army with somewhat of an advantage, but the other small groups still damage his economy. Since the player with the smaller armies all over the map wouldnt gain an immense disadvantage with engaging with smaller forces, he would have an ecomonic lead, still some forces, and could likely win the game. 2. Split up his forces to defend, counter attack, secure ground (yes, securing ground would be a lot more usefull and doable again). Attention of the two players would be needed everywhere, everywhere would need to be micro'd. Even with the new Hearth of the Swarm this would be great, since the new widow mine could secure ground against the smaller forces invading it.
This makes so much sense. Yeah, after this new info I would have to agree that this would be a change for the better.
On July 03 2012 18:55 Bommes wrote: Uploaded "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" on the EU server for everyone who wants to try it out.
dafag?!
Is that a troll post, I tried it and it doesnt change anything.
tries to separate your army and then move out, you will see the difference
On July 03 2012 19:08 papaz wrote: Nah, I actually like the deathball. Now all of you that wants more micro in SC2 suddenly wants to remove army splitting in battle?
Use your imba apm and get an advantage over us that can't marine split vs banelings.
no, now you can use your APM to make the death ball, instead of having the Ai doing it for you
Or you can use your APM to split your units, instead of having the AI do it for you. Herpderp.
The AI doesn't split it for you, it only helps you keep it split with this while at the moment it clumps up again in a single command.
And this would come with an AOE buff as well so you'd have to keep using APM and make sure to still keep them split
Keeping your army split after having to split it once reduces the amount of APM required to do something favourable: If you're not making sure you keep split against AoE with the current system then you're doing something wrong.
This change accomplishes nothing. Players who are actually good are capable of splitting their units and keeping them split when it matters, they don't need the AI to do it for them. Players who aren't good have nothing to complain about, they just have to get better (like most other things with this game). If you're having problems keeping your units split, here is a pro-tip: magic-boxing works for ground units as well.
Considering the AOE radius for spells would be increased too you would still have to split the same amount in the end since you'd have to split even more after that.
This isn't just an issue about splitting and aoe. It helps with so much more else, Weerwolf's post brings up a lot of the good points.
I remember the kespa pros were saying that battles ended way too fast, and it's almost impossible to come back from one bad mistake. I agree with Weerwolf, and I do agree also that there will be a need for balance with AOE stuff, but over all it will help mitigate the damage inflicted on each army. Even if you do split everything before hand, the current unit clumping is still a hinderance. For example zerglings: Sure you can spread them out before an engagement and get an awesome concave, but sometimes you'd still need to spread them out some more as some lings will try to shove their way in between a pair of lings already attacking, instead of simply just running around. Now for ranged units it's not so bad to take another second or two and drag some stuff from the back to the sides because they'll eventually be in range to shoot something anyway, but for melee units like ultras, lings, and zealots, that extra second where the unit decides to be a dragoon is a loss in dps.
Another thing about this kind of movement is that it forces the player to actually place their spells in good areas. For example with forcefield: to actually make the most out of forcefield, you'd need to place it in a good area. As of now you can approximate your forcfields splitting the army so that maybe 3/4 or 1/2 the army is behind the line of forcefield so you can decimate the 1/4 or 1/2 that is in range to attack your army. But with this kind of unit movement you'd only get a handful of units if you're just throwing forcefields willy-nillly. I'd rather lose 5-10 units and retreat with the bulk of my army, than have lag, delay, or get caught off gaurd make me lose a chunk of units.
What this also allows is for units that deal AOE damage to be positioned better, basically the same principle as the above paragraph, but now you'd be able to see BW-esque tank lines, collosi will need to be microed some so that they shoot a chunks of units and not a thin line of marines.
Overall I'd be a good idea to see this, but of course it would force a huge retweeking of units.
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
Radius of those skills would be increased which means that addiotional further splitting would be required and it would also add several other things to the game.
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
All this does is make it easier for terran to hold banelings ha. This is also apart of the game. I mean If starcraft 2 wouldn't have that kind of movement it wouldn't be the same game. It's skill requierd to split units for all races.
If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
On July 07 2012 00:57 treekiller wrote: If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
If you're reading this Blizzard, please do. Please attempt to change the game to make every part of it more interesting to both players and spectators. We have a great opportunity with HOTS to make some changes to the core mechanics of the game. I hope you take the time to try some of these suggestions out.
On July 07 2012 00:57 treekiller wrote: If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
People say that this change will reduce APM and that it reduces the skill needed to play the game. Well, maybe, but as it is right now, if you compare, this AI actually SCREWS UP your work every time again. That is the reason why it takes more APM and skill as it is right now. It's like the system changes your rally point and you always have to set it back or it won't work. You set it once already, and the AI is making fun of you.
On July 07 2012 00:57 treekiller wrote: If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
You're not thinking this through fuully, eh? Blizzard will have to COMPLETELY REBALANCE the game anyways with HotS and the new units (which particularly kill/neutralize Siege Tanks and other expensive units for example) that will be added to (and removed from) the game.
One small hint: In BW several units were "completely OP" ... AoE units like Siege Tanks, Psi Storm, Defiler Swarm, but it didnt matter simply because there was no chance to get "all your units" in a small enough area to be affected by one or two applications of those effects. If you reintroduce some method to stay apart you could also reintroduce that "OPness" and consequently have less problems with balancing of the game ... because minimizing the effects of the OP AoE effects would lie in the hands of the player again. As it is now they cant really counteract the "clumping up stupidity"-movement effects (I am thinking about a horde of Zerglings charging a line of Siege Tanks).
Personally I would think such a change would make the game more exciting by adding strategic element through the increased defensive AoE capabilities again. Zerg would kinda need a cheap and auto-aimed AoE unit though ... as well as Protoss (Colossi have too good movement capabilities and shouldnt get better damage and High Templars are a "battle AoE unit" as well which cant have too much increase in AoE effect either).
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of seeing two HTs storm a worker line, have the opponent not even looking, and only get 4 kills. That's just wrong.
I think they can find a way in the middle between the current clumping effect and no clumping at all, where it would help just a bit and not mess balance too badly.
After playing this type of game mode a few times it is difficult to get in a position where the units themselves actually spread apart. Corners keep them clumping, but if they start out from the rally in the ball they will stay in the ball, and getting back to the super efficient ball is easy as clicking in the center mass of units. Seems like if it were to break up more in the pictures showed on the OP it would need something else.
I like dynamic unit movement but it doesn't do the job by itself alone.
This is much better than the universal magic box (modified movement), because this is heterogenous. It's not just density, it's the homogeny that is the problem. This affects how units react to each other (sticky creating heterogeny, vs slipper and pushy). I much prefer this direction.
In conclusion, MM was a good try but this looks much closer to what BW was like.
On July 07 2012 06:21 FragRaptor wrote: After playing this type of game mode a few times it is difficult to get in a position where the units themselves actually spread apart. Corners keep them clumping, but if they start out from the rally in the ball they will stay in the ball, and getting back to the super efficient ball is easy as clicking in the center mass of units. Seems like if it were to break up more in the pictures showed on the OP it would need something else.
I like dynamic unit movement but it doesn't do the job by itself alone.
Please don't confuse the MM thread with this. This is much better.
On July 07 2012 06:12 mrafaeldie12 wrote: Yeah lets remove all the micro in the game.
On the contrary, adjusting the spacing/movement paradigm does not remove micro, it promotes it. If you're going to keep unlimited unit selection, it is much more likely that this will help motivate more micro because it's easier to grab specific units/bunches of units, without really effecting the skill cap. We are also advocating ability animations and more AoE and bigger maps, and more fast units, so the skill cap is not in danger.
On July 07 2012 00:57 treekiller wrote: If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
youre wrong, and if blizzard listens to people like this, sc2 will become much worse
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
Khaydarin was removed for making storm with it's current template size too powerful... Now you want to make the template bigger? Now you've just increased the potency of each high templar fielded, you think that will be fun for Terrans? If this thread is really about spectator happiness (which is rediculous by the way; we all know what it's about), you don't think terran-oriented spectators are going to say "stupid game toss OP just storm workers and win?"
Asked in another way that fits what is claimed as the concern in the thread: What's more fun, seeing 1 templar wreck a mineral line with 2 storms, or 2 wreck it with 4? I think at a base level people would agree that more is better.
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of seeing two HTs storm a worker line, have the opponent not even looking, and only get 4 kills. That's just wrong.
I lol when protoss even attempt storm drops in sc2. It's just shitty in sc2 while one of the most scariest, aggravating, intense, exciting and fun things of bw. :D
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of seeing two HTs storm a worker line, have the opponent not even looking, and only get 4 kills. That's just wrong.
I lol when protoss even attempt storm drops in sc2. It's just shitty in sc2 while one of the most scariest, aggravating, intense, exciting and fun things of bw. :D
On July 07 2012 00:57 treekiller wrote: If your reading this Blizzard, please dont. Please dont dumb the game down any further. If you change the movement, you will have to completely re-balance the game. You might not even be able to re-balance it.
Why try to balance the game around flawed gameplay? HotS will reset the balance anyway. Blizzard may as well fix the game before they attempt any balance changes in HotS...
On July 07 2012 06:21 FragRaptor wrote: After playing this type of game mode a few times it is difficult to get in a position where the units themselves actually spread apart. Corners keep them clumping, but if they start out from the rally in the ball they will stay in the ball, and getting back to the super efficient ball is easy as clicking in the center mass of units. Seems like if it were to break up more in the pictures showed on the OP it would need something else.
I like dynamic unit movement but it doesn't do the job by itself alone.
Please don't confuse the MM thread with this. This is much better.
As far as I know their is no working mod for this. So how can it be better?
On July 04 2012 22:30 Sableyeah wrote: No good, this makes skills like fungal, emp and storms not as effective. Less micro to dodge such which is bad for the game skillcap no?
There are a few threads similar to this one, and I think this response has been given a few dozen times in each.
Yes, it weakens AoE.
That's what AoE buffs are for.
Except when those AoE buffs then are used on mineral lines that didn't benefit from increased spacing. Except when those AoE buffs are used on units that are walking down a ramp or through a tight area.
That's why it increases skill level....
Its completely your fault for not looking at the minimap to catch the Warp Prism coming to your base.
Khaydarin was removed for making storm with it's current template size too powerful... Now you want to make the template bigger? Now you've just increased the potency of each high templar fielded, you think that will be fun for Terrans? If this thread is really about spectator happiness (which is rediculous by the way; we all know what it's about), you don't think terran-oriented spectators are going to say "stupid game toss OP just storm workers and win?"
Asked in another way that fits what is claimed as the concern in the thread: What's more fun, seeing 1 templar wreck a mineral line with 2 storms, or 2 wreck it with 4? I think at a base level people would agree that more is better.
It doesn't need to get bigger, its damage can be increased. Tank splash can be buffed as well, so the balance whine is irrelevant.
Blizzard removed KA because they didn't like it, not because it was necessarily too powerful. Alternatively, they could change the upgrade to regeneration rate rather than starting energy (which is more interesting and practical anyway). Maybe people should consider that HTs as end-game tech should be much better than tier 1 with medivacs.....is that unfathomable for them?
On July 07 2012 06:21 FragRaptor wrote: After playing this type of game mode a few times it is difficult to get in a position where the units themselves actually spread apart. Corners keep them clumping, but if they start out from the rally in the ball they will stay in the ball, and getting back to the super efficient ball is easy as clicking in the center mass of units. Seems like if it were to break up more in the pictures showed on the OP it would need something else.
I like dynamic unit movement but it doesn't do the job by itself alone.
Please don't confuse the MM thread with this. This is much better.
As far as I know their is no working mod for this. So how can it be better?
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.
wasn't the amulet removed because of the combination with warp gates making it too easy to just warp in some templars and then storm everything in the midst of battle?
The argument of more is better doesn't make much sense either. If you need 4 storms to kill a worker line, seeing one storm is not very exciting. However knowing that one storm can kill everything, adds a lot more excitement to it.
I can't remember which game I saw epic, epic storms and storm dodging, bisu vs roro (dunno if it was roro) on neo aztec or electric circuit, can't remember. But this youtube video shows that there can be a lot of excitement around it if one storm kills instead of 4.
On July 07 2012 23:41 wcr.4fun wrote: wasn't the amulet removed because of the combination with warp gates making it too easy to just warp in some templars and then storm everything in the midst of battle?
Yes. Being able to storm immediately after being produced anywhere on the map was considered too strong.
Drop 30 supply with banked gas. SWEET WARP IN 10 STORMS FOLLOWED BY 5 ARCHONS
Of course, any energy upgrade balance issues could be fixed if Browder changed them back to how they used to be (faster regen rate) rather than the simplistic starting energy buff. He caused the problem in the first place by arbitrarily ruining the energy upgrade paradigm.
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.
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.
On July 07 2012 06:21 FragRaptor wrote: After playing this type of game mode a few times it is difficult to get in a position where the units themselves actually spread apart. Corners keep them clumping, but if they start out from the rally in the ball they will stay in the ball, and getting back to the super efficient ball is easy as clicking in the center mass of units. Seems like if it were to break up more in the pictures showed on the OP it would need something else.
I like dynamic unit movement but it doesn't do the job by itself alone.
Please don't confuse the MM thread with this. This is much better.
As far as I know their is no working mod for this. So how can it be better?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was always confused by the lack of a formation option list for a group of selected units. Other strategy games, such as age of empires I believe, employ this. Obviously it's a double-edged sword though, because while it reduces clumping it also lessens the need to micro and position your units.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
In all fairness then, who is enough of a realist/expert to balance the game?
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.
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.
Fanfiction is terrible, just terrible. Improving pathing is something that may happen in HotS, but they are not going to tell people they are going to do it. It will likely be one of many "stealth" updates that tweek the gameplay that we don't currently know about.
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.
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.
In all fairness then, who is enough of a realist/expert to balance the game?
From what I've learned, only the very top of the progamers are allowed to comment on balance. So maybe only major tournaments winners can be allowed to decide how to balance the game.
Referring to "The Elephant in the Room" (TLFE) puts this in the perspective that the basic gist of army movement in SC2 has not changed since its release. The OP seems especially considered with the viewer, and I really understand the point. I'm a longtime BW fan, and I'm trying to get into SC2 viewing (I don't play) by watching high level stuff. I've tried catching most of the TSL qualifiers and the free GOMtv vods. At the very least, blob vs. blob makes it hard for casters to call an exciting. When armies meet the casters so often just say "And here we go!" or some variation on that. It's difficult to find a game tense or exciting when you are just sort of waiting for this really short moment that just has too many things going on.
I've been slowly learning the micro associated with the larger battles, and it certainly adds subtlety to the battle, but it's not visually engaging. I would be 100% in favor of increasing unit buffer sizes or changing the pathing code. There are some wonderful ideas going for SC2 and interesting units, but there are some things that seem incredibly obvious to fix, and blob vs. blob is one of them.
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.
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?
I think you would be interested in MavercK's SC2BW Mod then (assuming he adds his movement mod to his SC2BW mod)
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.
Maybe it doesn't fix the problem entirely, but it still helps, doesn't it? If not helping death ball mechanics, it still helps the game overall —I'd say— by adding strategy with regards to using unit formations and micro-managing them. That said, it could be overpowered vs AoE (namely marine vs baneling), which is probably it's biggest problem.
Regarding SC1 vs SC2, I don't see why SC2 needs to be like SC1. You seem to be talking about something that I don't know or care about. Just because SC1 doesn't have a larger magic box doesn't mean the SC2 magic box can't be huge.
I dont think that the unit movement is bad it is just different and different is hard for people sometimes. Clumped up units just require a different kind of micro then bw units did. You know splitting and what not.
For there to be a blob vs blob battle, I am fine with that as long as the battle lasts more than 5 seconds. In BW, deathball collisions can last at least 10 seconds and upwards to a minute of just micro, sparring across many screens. This is what I would love for SC2 to have. I have no issue with the pathing, but its the terrible, terrible damage issue thats killing this pathing issue. If units were more like their BW counterparts, blob vs blob battles would actually be more epic because the engagements would last longer, and give players an opportunity to micro it out longer.
Didn't we already settle that this would wreck balance in the previous thread? Then again, I guess HotS is already doing that. Still, I don't think Blizzard will do this in HotS. Maybe LotV, but I sincerely doubt it. Come to think of it, dynamic unit movement may actually reduce the skillcap, due to things like perma-split marines and such. I'd be open to arguments on that point, though.
In the last thread, the overwhelming majority said that it was a bad idea because it would destroy AOE damage and make single target damage pretty much OP. it would take the skill out of controlling a "ball" (more squarish now which looks funky to me even more so) against collosus or banelings. Both of those units require micro, despite claims of Noob-ish units especially for the collosus. The fact is that by spacing out units like this, people effectively make forcefields too powerful since they can block even more units and they make single target DPS units, namely the marine too powerful in that you cannot kill a group of them with AOE anymore if micro'd against it now. I think we are overlooking balance for an aesthetic which is one of the topics BW players complain about in regards to SCII.
On July 17 2012 13:20 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Didn't we already settle that this would wreck balance in the previous thread? Then again, I guess HotS is already doing that. Still, I don't think Blizzard will do this in HotS. Maybe LotV, but I sincerely doubt it. Come to think of it, dynamic unit movement may actually reduce the skillcap, due to things like perma-split marines and such. I'd be open to arguments on that point, though.
First of all, it won't 'wreck balance' whatsoever. A few AoE tweaks and you're good to go. Secondly, this IS the previous thread, created over a year ago. Finally, this ridiculous idea that spread out units reduces the skill cap is silly. Marine splitting is not the most exciting kind of micro fathomable, you know? It just inverts the micro paradigm, the skill cap is unchanged or even helped by this.
The above poster - really? does the response to the foolish 'aoe nerf/dps' have to be given on every single page? You fix the foundation (spacing/movement), then you tweak AoE, etc. Not that hard my friend.
And legibility and perceived army size are hugely important factors that SC2 sucks at.
On July 17 2012 13:20 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Didn't we already settle that this would wreck balance in the previous thread? Then again, I guess HotS is already doing that. Still, I don't think Blizzard will do this in HotS. Maybe LotV, but I sincerely doubt it. Come to think of it, dynamic unit movement may actually reduce the skillcap, due to things like perma-split marines and such. I'd be open to arguments on that point, though.
Perma-spread Marines DONT reduce the skillcap, because you can still choose to clump them up in a tight ball and either way you are screwed against Zergling-Baneling attacks, because clumped up Marines are "countered" by Banelings and spread out ones are "countered" by Zerglings (more surface area to attack). If you spread your Marines your own dps will be reduced by a lot because some of the will be spread so far that they will only start shooting rather late, so you will be faced with a choice on how to risk your army ... and choosing between two evils is always good.
Blizzard will never incorporate anything like this into SC2 for the simple reason that they are arrogant and believe themselves to have designed a game without faults. Also changes like this would be like admitting to not being perfect. As always I have the pessimistic "win-win" point of view, because either I am proven wrong and they change the game for the better OR I am rpoven right.
How can the movement in the opening post and the movement in Sc2BW be added to the game? Are they a dependencie file or are they purely created in the data editor?
On July 21 2012 01:15 Kabel wrote: How can the movement in the opening post and the movement in Sc2BW be added to the game? Are they a dependencie file or are they purely created in the data editor?
On July 17 2012 13:24 docvoc wrote: In the last thread, the overwhelming majority said that it was a bad idea because it would destroy AOE damage and make single target damage pretty much OP. it would take the skill out of controlling a "ball" (more squarish now which looks funky to me even more so) against collosus or banelings. Both of those units require micro, despite claims of Noob-ish units especially for the collosus. The fact is that by spacing out units like this, people effectively make forcefields too powerful since they can block even more units and they make single target DPS units, namely the marine too powerful in that you cannot kill a group of them with AOE anymore if micro'd against it now. I think we are overlooking balance for an aesthetic which is one of the topics BW players complain about in regards to SCII.
All of that is easily fixed by changing the radius of AoE spells and attacks accordingly.
I listened to an episode of The Starcast with EGSuppy, where he mentions this thread as a change he'd like to see in SC2.
With all of the experimentaion being done in the HoTS Beta, now would be a great time to revisit this idea. Blizzard could potentially balance new units around this bigger collision space and play around with the a new game dynamic to see how it plays out.
Could some pros maybe post this on the Blizzard private forums to get this idea in front of their eyes?
I really really REALLY like this idea. I think it brings up a good point of the reduction of splash units. Right now with the units auto clumping, it is really easy to lose all of your units to splash dmg if you arent carefully controlling or looking at them (i am speaking with more of an emphasis on the non-progamers, b/c they are important as well). I hope a blizzard representative sees this and hopefully put this in their design of HOTS.
On October 23 2012 02:06 TheLunatic wrote: Op if this was implemended all thee races would need massive changes thus this change will never occur
This is why now (HoTS Beta) would be the perfect time to try this out.
This is a good point. Also, is this or is there some sort of mod that implements this? If so, this could also be the perfect time for someone to host some sort of tournament using this with pro players. Granted it wouldn't be the prettiest tournament for the players since they will have had little practice but it could still be insightful. Just an idea.
I've made some progress on this during my time making a mod. What do you guys think?
Only trigger is disable units pushing other units (one command, its a player flag you can switch off). Also lots of trial and error with changing unit radiuses, accel/decel, formation radius, turn rate, etc. This makes em bump into each other a bit forcing them to need to spread out a bit more.
This is the single biggest fix that I dream will one day be implemented. It will slow down battles, make it so AoE isn't so strong, spread out the death ball...
The game would be much more interesting from a spectating viewpoint, as well as playing, but the amount of re-balancing and remapping Blizzard would never allow this to happen. Also add in the fact that Blizzard notoriously doesn't like to change things period, look at the current map pool + Bnet 2.0 stuff we've been clamoring for since hte start of SC2 that have been ignored. Really really cool, it would definitely change the game completely as we know it (for the better, imo) but it's sadly not going to happen, given that it's Blizzard we're talking about here.
This type of unit behavior + things that would make you scream (spider mine, scarab) are the things i miss the most from BW. A grain of uncertainty and randomness, together with this would make the game much more exciting to watch imo.
let's hope blizzard will take into consideration this type of movement... there's not much time left they should take every necessary step to SC2 success
On July 17 2012 12:49 RoyMadman wrote: I dont think that the unit movement is bad it is just different and different is hard for people sometimes. Clumped up units just require a different kind of micro then bw units did. You know splitting and what not.
Definitely the different nature of micro seems to be very difficult for broodwar players to accept. SC2 movement looks much more natural, much smoother, and much easier to predict. Eliminating randomness reduces the chance that someone worse will gain an advantage without the effort or skill to deserve it.
If sc2 movement existed in broodwar, this would be a non-issue, and then if sc2 brought in the broodwar style movement it would be utterly rejected by the community.
Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. First things first. WE NEED TO CONVINCE BLIZZARD THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. They've never clearly stated that movement is a problem in SC2.
I've made some progress on this during my time making a mod. What do you guys think?
Only trigger is disable units pushing other units (one command, its a player flag you can switch off). Also lots of trial and error with changing unit radiuses, accel/decel, formation radius, turn rate, etc. This makes em bump into each other a bit forcing them to need to spread out a bit more.
The movements looks a little clunky, but I guess that's a necessary evil considering the devs didn't plan for this kind of thing. Though, the soundbytes you used for the Vultures reminds me - Battlezone's AI was very natural when it came to movement. Maybe we could try and take some inspiration, allowing for stuff like minor bits of strafing and reversing, as well as proper turns to really give the feel of the units having weight. One of my biggest problems with SC2's movement is that everything turns before moving, it makes everything seem almost robotic and it's boring. Having certain units turn while moving would really add something, in my opinion.