EPTUnit Clumping in SC2 - Good or Bad - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
| ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
On December 30 2011 00:47 power-overwhelming wrote: Lol... a terran bio ball which coast less than half the of what a protoss deathball is (even without colo) will get decimated in 5 seconds. Stim + medi + kiting vs gateway units only? Ya right lol. Throw in a ghost then a mediocre terran just rolls over a good protoss. Protoss has the worst t1 units. The also have very limited synergy with other units. There are only 2 late game composition a good protoss will have, gateway archon, and gateway colo/archon. Without colo then ghost will laugh at any 3/3 protoss army. If colo gets removed then bring back reaver. Reaver would be definietly overpowered for the same cost ( 200 / 200 ) if this "ball" syndrome keeps exisisting | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On December 29 2011 12:07 Leviance wrote: The first true SC2 bonjwa will actually train and be able to de-clump his units, everyone is gonna be shocked how one-sided battles will go in his favour. I don't get how even now, a year after release, the majority of the pros (Koreans included) only use 1-2 hotkeys for their armies. The best Zergs in the world still run all their lings clumped into a siege line instead of separating a few at the start to completely negate splash, Collossi attacks are still devastating because everyone is too lazy to split intelligently so that most of the splash is avoided, far too often a group of 4-6 templars get hit by ONE emp because lazy players (pros!!!) keep them so vulnerably together. The new UI allows for being more lazy, and the pros atm are showing just that: being lazy (on their level) I know it'd be fucking hard to constantly de-clump and so on, but that's exactly the work a wannabe-bonjwa has to do, if it wasn't hard as shit, everyone could do it. But right now everyone (GSL winners included) just keeps suffering from the 1-2 control group syndrome and the many disadvantages that come with it. frustrating to watch, but leaves hope for Jaedong, Flash etc. switching and showing the rest how it's done. Ive had similar thoughts often myself. Imagine for example what you could accomplish as a zerg against a siege line for example. Pre-splitting all banes before running in to avoid any more than one being killed at the time. Having a few lone lings (or roaches for their superior tanking purpose) lead the charge to avoid halv the army dieing to the first siege tank fires. Having 3-5 or so independant control groups of lings targetting different siege tanks. While at the same time controlling your banes/infestors/mutas/whatever properly. Obviously theres a limit to human APM, but one can dream at least since theres just an almost indefinite amount of small things even the best could improve on today. | ||
|
Pazuzu
United States632 Posts
Still the biggest point, as someone pointed out above, is that the game is still in its infancy. army splitting and micro in the way that puma used against Hero in DHW grand finals to win on metalopolis completely demolished hero's straight up push; things are developing. Blizzard is well in touch with what the game needs for maximum success and by the time sc2 reaches same age of brood war these issues will be resolved | ||
|
castled
United States322 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Besides, SC2 units need to be made to take critical advantage of stupidity ( i.e. clumping up ) but right now the punishing units don't do that as much. It's a different game, and I like that. Sc2 has 99 problems, but unit clumping won't be one once players get good enough and once more punishing units get added. | ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
On December 30 2011 00:34 Big J wrote: As micro in bw and sc2 is limited by apm and not by possibilities it is simply impossible for one of those 2 games to have "more micro". the difference is how the micro looks like. I disagree, its not only that some micro stuff is easier to execute due to the streamlined design, but some possibilities have also been removed. Day9 talked about it and described it beautifully so I encourage you to have a look: http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982 | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
Yes I did, and my point is: BW has all the SC2 micro aspects, and even some more, like patrol micro. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
Raygun
348 Posts
| ||
|
ch72105
24 Posts
The smaller unit collision radius + 3d graphics means units are constantly overlapping each other visually, and their form just kind of disappears into a big army blob. This is most pronounced with mass roaches I think. Just speaking of the visual effect of increasing the collision radius (about 1.5 sounds about right): the game would look much better, battles would be much more clearly and cleanly communicated to the spectator, armies would take up more of the screen and battles would feel more epic As it is right now, a capped army can take up like 1/8th of the screen because everything blobs together... in BW, capped armies took up 2 screens, and it was because there was very little unit overlap. And people thinking this would hurt micro, it just wouldn't. The difference competitively would be very small, it'd be more of a visual change. Unit scattering would still be just as relevant, and any weakening of AOE can be solved with minor balance tweaks. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 29 2011 12:22 varint wrote: do you really think with so much at stake and practicing 10+ hours a day that the only reason pros don't spread their armies is because they're lazy? its not that pros are lazy. not at all. Its that the unit composition of T and P heavily favor "balling" or "clumping". And there isn't enough AOE to deal with that issue. In brood war you had ensnare at T2 for zerg and plague at T3, and ensnare hits about the same size as current fungal, but plague was about 1.5x bigger AoE, and it takes all units down to 1 health. I really hate how people bitch about fungal for this reason alone, but the point is, AoE for T and P and little for zerg, T and P have high range, zerg has low, this essentially maens you WANT to clump because you have the advantage. The other issue is that, barring things like warping in a row of zealots in front of your protoss ball for ezpz style arrangement, and then moving the zealots ahead while managing your faster deathball units so they stay directly behind in their "clump, which is good for protoss to do all the frickin time, Im going to guess that the pros have discovered, as I have, that Declumpuing takes a backseat to Macro like inject and unit spamming from structures. If you declump, you win maybe 10% better, but focused that much more micro into your playstyle, thus your macro falters and you die in the Remax Wars. SC2 is about the deathball, or who remaxes faster. There's little else. On December 29 2011 12:54 Mossen wrote: I don't like the clumping. Mainly because it makes it almost impossible to come back from behind to have a chance of winning the game. In BW, there was more of a chance that, even if behind, you could win a skirmish due to the fact that the whole army was not engaging at once and the player had to use a little more strategy, unit position, etc. This meant that you could possibly change the tide of the game. Now, it is just ball vs. ball and the fact that you can put infinity units on 1 hot key exasperates the situation. I know this is besides the point, but it also makes it much more unrealistic. Imagine a group of 20 real marines tightly clumped in a ball stutter stepping and hitting the target with every shot fired. Ridiculous, IMHO. Anyone who has fired a gun knows its more likely they would be dying of friendly fire at every shot. this, completely. If you lose vs a deathball, you've lost. If you lose vs a brood waer deathball, its not by as much because units couldnt clump, like the most retarded king of units colossus. The design of the colossus wasn't even intended to create a deathball by their thinking, it was intended so coloss could run up into enemy bases and kill workers like a raider. dustin browder actaully said this latter part in the beta or release interview or whatever. Basically, the colossus being a perfect deathball supplement was an oversight. But hey, oversights abound in SC2. which is why we have a useless reaper and corruptors and imba marines. | ||
|
101.blubb
Germany38 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On December 30 2011 01:44 blubbdavid wrote: Yes I did, and my point is: BW has all the SC2 micro aspects, and even some more, like patrol micro. So you read it but didn't understand. BW has more micro possibilities but APM severely limits what a person can do. No one is close to the limit of what you can do with micro in either game, that was what he was saying. | ||
|
DarK[A]
United States217 Posts
Think of everything each race usually bitch about... splash damage on their mutas, banelings on their marines, colossi tearing through their units, etc. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
I don't think it's visually unappealing nor is it any more "unrealistic" than a million and a half other things in the game. I think people are waaaaaaaaaaay too hyperbolic about the "ball v ball" aspect of the game. They make it sound like the entire game comes down to a one second engagement, when 90% of the time it's all based on positioning, timing, unit composition, upgrades, etc. I love this fucking game exactly how it is and will be pissed as fuck if they start making it work like an old game just so people can play it and feel like they're playing an old game. PLAY THE OLD GAME IF YOU LIKE IT MORE! | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 30 2011 01:28 gn0m wrote: I disagree, its not only that some micro stuff is easier to execute due to the streamlined design, but some possibilities have also been removed. Day9 talked about it and described it beautifully so I encourage you to have a look: http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982 Yes and no... Day9 is right and everything but (as far as i remember the episode) he talks exclusively about what is now not possible anymore and not what is possible now. F.e.: infinite unit selection allows gives me more spare apm to do something else as well. i dont use x apm to command 50units from a to b. Im only using x/5 now or even less for the same thing which means i have still a lot of ressources to do stuff like macroing or small assaults/defenses while I do this. Especially if you watch supercreative players like TLO you will find out just how true this can be and how many times x you still can squeeze out of your units if you just outmicro your opponent on multiple fronts at the same time. Especially judging from multidrops and marine vs baneling battles I just think day9 purposly talks sc2 control possibilities a little bit down to avoid debates like (isnt 3x better than 9x because it means that you simply cant win just by being good with mutalisks) a lot of it will/might just come down to development in gameplay. right now we hardly ever see people really use their armies all the time, but what if the game starts to get figuered out. what if people really develope those playstyles in which a protoss exclusivly builds units at proxy pylons and zerg cant afford to build a unit "just in case". Honestly, sc2 develops a lot but in my eyes it still feels like people just pee their pants all day instead of using their possibilities they are still philosophing over ways in which they could lose. (ever seen that game: min0-6 using everx unit they have to harass buildings and control the map. min6-10 setting up a first army from 2bases. min10-15 sending just as few units out so it doesnt matter in terms of defence. then one big fight and over is the game) realisticly one person should always try to be aggressive necause only one player can win a battle. even more so if the game is a little more statistical, as then it is easier to judge wether it is you or your opponent that has the opportunity armywise to do so... but i think we still are not there. jjakji vs leenock was a good start and players like HerO or TLO already generate most of their strength from being in their opponents face. Its still T-5+ years before we should start to talk about bw and sc2 in one sentence -if we ever should!) | ||
|
Beakyboo
United States485 Posts
The worst part about this debate is that it's really just blind conjecture. You can't predict exactly how a change this big would play out in the long run, and people here seem to be so confident in these idealized, hypothetical notions about how it would benefit the game. It's a very different game than BW and fights are going to be quicker if for no other reason than the unit pathing being way better. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 30 2011 03:24 Beakyboo wrote: I can just about guarantee that if they tried to reduce unit clumping that the community reaction would be overwhelmingly negative. You might think BW was the better game and attribute that to thinks like unit clumping, but in reality SC2 is doing fine the way it is. The worst part about this debate is that it's really just blind conjecture. You can't predict exactly how a change this big would play out in the long run, and people here seem to be so confident in these idealized, hypothetical notions about how it would benefit the game. It's a very different game than BW and fights are going to be quicker if for no other reason than the unit pathing being way better. it doesnt have to be. Map editor. I've been saying for ages that if people truly think something is OP or UP, or something mechanical about the game needs changing, map edit it and release it as a "TheoryCraft game X" where some idea is put into practice for people to play on their own. This would not only increase everyone's personal understanding of the game, an d make them more informed when blizz tries to "patch/fix" issues, it would also give them some idea of what could really work as far as changing the game. | ||
|
JeanLuc
Canada377 Posts
A couple of points I want to make: firstly that clumping is visually unappealing besides the strategic concerns. Secondly, having played a lot of Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3 frozen throne,and now this game I will say that as much as I enjoy this game (and I do) I miss the ability for superior micro to dramatically effect the outcome of battles like they did in the previous games. I know a lot of people are shouting "THEN GO PLAY THE OLD GAME" but that's not the point. No one is attempting to revert sc2 to an older style of game for nostalgia's sake, the fact is that sc2 is missing a lot by not emulating these exciting, interesting qualities of its classic RTS predecessors. In this game, so many battles are over in the blink of an eye. Yes positioning, micro is important to some extent but not nearly to the degree it was in games like frozen throne. In frozen throne you would often have armies that were identical in food to each other and it was chiefly your mastery in focusing units, doing clever micro plays etc. that determined the outcome in battle. It coudl lead to some really beautiful and exciting moments. Unfortunately that is missing from this game. Most of the time you can figure out before hand who is going to win the battle entirely from food count and composition. Controlling your units plays some role but not nearly enough imo. So yeah, basically I'm hoping that in the coming expansions, minute control of your army in sc2 will pay bigger dividends, and that less of the battles will be over in the blink of an eye. | ||
| ||
