|
On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me.
but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped.
watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage.
TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for.
mech you always need to spread tanks out
|
On September 30 2013 21:01 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped. watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage. TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for. mech you always need to spread tanks out
B, but what about the PROTOSS BALL??? carbot always make fun of them  1+1= ONE!!!
I guess it is because gateway units are too weak? (EDIT: not HTs. the other units)
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 30 2013 21:51 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 21:01 ETisME wrote:On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped. watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage. TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for. mech you always need to spread tanks out B, but what about the PROTOSS BALL??? carbot always make fun of them 1+1= ONE!!! I guess it is because gateway units are too weak? (EDIT: not HTs. the other units)
Protoss ball benefits from correct positioning (involving slight spread) too. Ever seen collosi stuck behind each other :3 or zealots behind stalkers?
|
On September 30 2013 21:59 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 21:51 SsDrKosS wrote:On September 30 2013 21:01 ETisME wrote:On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped. watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage. TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for. mech you always need to spread tanks out B, but what about the PROTOSS BALL??? carbot always make fun of them 1+1= ONE!!! I guess it is because gateway units are too weak? (EDIT: not HTs. the other units) Protoss ball benefits from correct positioning (involving slight spread) too. Ever seen collosi stuck behind each other :3 or zealots behind stalkers?
Also needs spread out templars, many players have a warp prism ferrying units, Immortals need to be in front but are too expensive to tank, blinking foreward to snipe while kiting backwards all while pulling away target fired colossus, etc...
|
honestly I think sc2 has great micro everywhere, the biggest problem lies on this:
not enough units that a player can be famous for
We only have taeja for his ghost control, MKP for marine micro, life with his lings.
I might miss out one or two but you get the point.
SC2 really lacks units that are really upto the player's skill to perform its full potential.
Builds can be copied but controls are usually extremely difficult to imitate
It is what makes a player unique and it's too rare in sc2.
|
ETisME I completely 100% agree with you and when doing this you create a game with more depth.... If sc2 gave us units like that I have a feeling it would create the next sc boom 
|
On October 01 2013 01:03 ETisME wrote:
honestly I think sc2 has great micro everywhere, the biggest problem lies on this:
not enough units that a player can be famous for
We only have taeja for his ghost control, MKP for marine micro, life with his lings.
I might miss out one or two but you get the point.
SC2 really lacks units that are really upto the player's skill to perform its full potential.
Builds can be copied but controls are usually extremely difficult to imitate
It is what makes a player unique and it's too rare in sc2.
I'd kill my brother to have the equivalent of Fantasy Vultures in SC2.
Not that I have a brother--but if I did, I'd sacrifice him for the good of esports.
|
On October 01 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'd kill my brother to have the equivalent of Fantasy Vultures in SC2.
Not that I have a brother--but if I did, I'd sacrifice him for the good of esports.
Vultures would be pretty terrible in SC2 against Protoss with the SC2 shield mechanics and stalkers. Doing 10 damage to shields instead of 20 means they're pretty meh.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 01 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 01:03 ETisME wrote:
honestly I think sc2 has great micro everywhere, the biggest problem lies on this:
not enough units that a player can be famous for
We only have taeja for his ghost control, MKP for marine micro, life with his lings.
I might miss out one or two but you get the point.
SC2 really lacks units that are really upto the player's skill to perform its full potential.
Builds can be copied but controls are usually extremely difficult to imitate
It is what makes a player unique and it's too rare in sc2. I'd kill my brother to have the equivalent of Fantasy Vultures in SC2. Not that I have a brother--but if I did, I'd sacrifice him for the good of esports.
Pfft, after seeing those fantasy vultures... chargelots would counter 'em :D
|
On September 30 2013 21:01 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped. watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage. TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for. mech you always need to spread tanks out
It's not just the clumping up by itself, its the fast economy and the pathfinding/clumping and (I forgot to mention before) the hard counter units. Also I disagree, while you don't want your whole army to be in one large clump, you do want it to be separated into efficient clumps that reach critical damage whenever you can while avoiding AOE (Think Roaches, Banelings, Mutas, Hyrdras, Marines+Marauders, Vikings, Stalkers, Colossi).
I don't actually think the pathing is a problem, though I would like the option to move units in formation so that they don't automatically clump when repositioned. I would prefer if unit's did less damage and/or economy was slowed down forcing players to spread out further such that there were more opportunities for micro to have a higher impact.
On October 01 2013 01:03 ETisME wrote:
honestly I think sc2 has great micro everywhere, the biggest problem lies on this:
not enough units that a player can be famous for
We only have taeja for his ghost control, MKP for marine micro, life with his lings.
I might miss out one or two but you get the point.
SC2 really lacks units that are really upto the player's skill to perform its full potential.
Builds can be copied but controls are usually extremely difficult to imitate
It is what makes a player unique and it's too rare in sc2.
See I agree that there is lots of great micro but I think that there are more opportunities or they are more obvious with smaller amounts of units or units that don't die so quickly.
|
On September 30 2013 18:25 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. Critical numbers will always exist and aren't always bad for the game. If you know that at some point you will be weaker due to worse scaling, you will be encouraged to attack your opponent, and whether this is all-in aggression or not is decided by other factors. Also, given that you are relatively stronger in small numbers, you could try your hand at multi-pronged aggression, to try to spread out the opponent's army to force engagements in your favor. So scaling can create exciting action-packed games. I do think Rabiator is correct that the scaling in SC2 is often extreme (due to pathfinding mostly) and maybe even unwanted, but it's a problem that can be fixed without changing the pathfinding really. To take the brood lord as an example, because of the broodlings it has a critical numbers effect which was very problematic in Wings of Liberty. In the expansion the brood lord stayed the same, but some synergy with the infestor was lost and now instead of needing 7-10 brood lords to create an unbeatable army it's 10+ that are required. A small change, and the critical numbers aspect still exists, but all of a sudden it's not problematic anymore.
I never said they wouldn't exist, and I never suggested changing it by changing the pathfinding.
What I would prefer is if critical numbers took longer to reach, so that there is more time when micro has a larger impact on battles, and if players were forced to spread out further to reach critical numbers (as in expand more) so that the player is more open to harassment in order to allow the player who is behind more opportunities to get ahead with good play.
I am not saying that critical numbers are always bad, but that I think they are too good in sc2 and too easy to obtain.
|
On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove.
Sure enough critical numbers existed in BW as well, BUT they were PUNISHABLE. The most obvious example is Mutalisks, who could be clumped up very tightly to a super effective clump, but each race has several ways of punishing that clump. The difference between the games is that BW didnt allow for automatically maximized unit density on the ground, so it was left to the players choice to run all his Zerglings into the line of Siege Tanks in a dense (but FAR LESS densely than it is automatically done in SC2) group of units.
In SC2 you dont have a punishment for any clumped up units. None. Due to the automatically clumped up nature of units this would be far too powerful and thus AoE had to be nerfed. Blizzard chose the style of their battles to be "tightly packed" and had to make this adjustment to AoE. Their choice and it was a mistake.
The critical numbers problem is solvable ... just as BW showed. It is only "not solvable" if you want to stick with the SC2 economy and movement AI.
All you need to do is limit the unit density on the ground so you limit the numbers of units which can shoot an opposing unit (due to range) and you make AoE powerful enough to be able to punish any such high unit densities if they ever come up. You then give the player the option of increasing his unit density through micro and the risk is left to the player instead of having the devs decide for them. For air units you will always have the potential clump and you need units which punish that, but since air tech is not really the first thing you start to build en masse that is ok.
Removing the economic and production speed boosts in SC2 will help to keep the unit density low as well.
|
On September 30 2013 21:01 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. but the clumping up isn't a problem because rarely in any situation you want the units to be clumped. watch TvZ for example, the bio and mines are pre spread. Zerg has to spread or flank and bait mines before engage. TvP if you clump up the HTs, you get emp and you are done for. mech you always need to spread tanks out
Each of your spread out clumps is packed tightly though and there are no ways to punish that ... except for Banelings which have an awesome efficiency at killing Marines (or other light ground units). Compare that to a Siege Tank and you notice that one shot only kills three lousy Zerglings outright; that is far too few when there is a tight clump of them rushing your position, so to make the Siege Tank worth it again you need to
a) spread out the Zerglings more by forced unit spreading instead of auto-clumping AND
b) increasing the Siege Tank splash radius and damage.
After this you might be able to attack in a tighter clump, but will be punished for it OR the Zerglings take more time to get to the tanks which leaves them more time to defend.
|
One siege tank shot kills 6zerglings.
|
On October 01 2013 15:23 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote:
Log in to thread - check
See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check
Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. Sure enough critical numbers existed in BW as well, BUT they were PUNISHABLE. The most obvious example is Mutalisks, who could be clumped up very tightly to a super effective clump, but each race has several ways of punishing that clump. The difference between the games is that BW didnt allow for automatically maximized unit density on the ground, so it was left to the players choice to run all his Zerglings into the line of Siege Tanks in a dense (but FAR LESS densely than it is automatically done in SC2) group of units. In SC2 you dont have a punishment for any clumped up units. None. Due to the automatically clumped up nature of units this would be far too powerful and thus AoE had to be nerfed. Blizzard chose the style of their battles to be "tightly packed" and had to make this adjustment to AoE. Their choice and it was a mistake. The critical numbers problem is solvable ... just as BW showed. It is only "not solvable" if you want to stick with the SC2 economy and movement AI. All you need to do is limit the unit density on the ground so you limit the numbers of units which can shoot an opposing unit (due to range) and you make AoE powerful enough to be able to punish any such high unit densities if they ever come up. You then give the player the option of increasing his unit density through micro and the risk is left to the player instead of having the devs decide for them. For air units you will always have the potential clump and you need units which punish that, but since air tech is not really the first thing you start to build en masse that is ok. Removing the economic and production speed boosts in SC2 will help to keep the unit density low as well.
My example for this would be ranged vs melee. There is a scaling difference that you can observe that favors ranged, but you can introduce new units/tech into the game outside of only marines and zerglings that can punish ranged. The aberrations from the campaign that could walk on top of zerglings would be an example, they won't be that powerful in smaller armies but in larger armies they can possibly attack whereas zerglings wouldn't have any surface area left. A different change could be to simply buff zerglings in late-game, like with adrenal glands, but it suffers from creating a power disparity with smaller armies. (presumably that's why adrenal glands is a fairly weak upgrade)
|
United Kingdom20294 Posts
Adrenal Glands is a really powerful upgrade, it's just zerglings are typically not the most important units by the time hive is out in force
|
On October 01 2013 17:16 Cyro wrote:
Adrenal Glands is a really powerful upgrade, it's just zerglings are typically not the most important units by the time hive is out in force
It's weaker than +3 attack, I think.
|
On October 01 2013 17:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:16 Cyro wrote:
Adrenal Glands is a really powerful upgrade, it's just zerglings are typically not the most important units by the time hive is out in force It's weaker than +3 attack, I think.
It's basically the same as +3. You basically get 4/3 zerglings when you have both, which is really nice for counterattacks, but doesn't change any dynamics. I'd say in the current PvZ and ZvZ it's helpful in ultralisk builds. In TvZ it's helpful, but you have the exact same problems as with getting +3/+3, and when you have to make a choice you get +3 instead because it works on everything for the same money. I think it is mostly interesting when you want to stay on ling/bling/muta past 25mins, but it's not too important as you mostly rely on banelings and mutas for the actual combats and zerglings are mostly meatshields. I guess what I'm saying is that in a priority list of things you want, the adrenalin glands is one of the last T3 things in current TvZ (unlike in WoL TvZ where you were relying much, much more on zerglings).
|
Results from September are up
Looks good:http://aligulac.com/reports/
|
On October 01 2013 17:47 keglu wrote:
Results from September are up
Looks good:http://aligulac.com/reports/
Seems like Terran are doing worst and are getting nerfed? O.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
