EPTThe Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nabes
Canada1800 Posts
| ||
|
D_K_night
Canada615 Posts
It's true. many of the units such as the roach, collosus etc are one-dimensional units which take away from the strategic aspect of the game. if only the roach was closer to what it was originally designed for - a tanking unit which regenned HP so quickly that it absolutely forced you to focus-fire it...or it'll just heal to full. With the caveat that it has low dps. I wonder why Blizzard took that idea away and made it much more bland. Marauder is lame, nuff said there. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter. Same goes for bio to be honest, stop move micro can look pretty but it's not difficult, in situations splitting can be very good and difficult to pull off but I don't see it much apart from the very best matches. As Artosis said, this is all to do with marauders, they're like mobile tanks. Also, you seem to be under the impression that tanks are bad vP, I impore you to watch Day9's recent episode on mech versus protoss. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 11 2012 04:16 Barrin wrote: Lots of good thinking material here. Many thanks for that. I can't say I agree with precisely everything you said (more that your perspective is incomplete than being wrong). I would elaborate right now, but you said a whole lot and it's gonna take a bunch to reply properly lool (im busy atm). I am certainly dissatisfied with one dimensional unit interaction and how map control is almost a non-issue. I'll be sure to come back to these two OPs. Thank you. I'll be interested to see what more you can add to what I've written. I could've written even more, but honestly my brain was getting fried and I felt it was already getting too long. I look forward to your response. On January 11 2012 04:16 Scootaloo wrote: Great thread in general, in parts your pro terran bias comes out though. For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter. Same goes for bio to be honest, stop move micro can look pretty but it's not difficult, in situations splitting can be very good and difficult to pull off but I don't see it much apart from the very best matches. As Artosis said, this is all to do with marauders, they're like mobile tanks. Also, you seem to be under the impression that tanks are bad vP, I impore you to watch Day9's recent episode on mech versus protoss. I do not have a terran bias at all. I don't even play terran in sc2. Ghosts are powerful, but they are not badly designed, just like high templar are powerful, but not badly designed. If you think they are too powerful, that's a balance issue. If you believe that marauders are a truly badly designed unit, by all means I'll add them on there. I've bounced back and forth on the case. Tanks are atrocious vP, and no top terran thinks they're good. Avilo had a very good video blog a while back about how mech is just atrocious vs protoss and there's no possible way to make it work. | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
Someone posted on reddit patch changes to carrier the supposedly "useless" unit that cant be fixed and done anything with. Yes there was no patches since beta, they gave us a unit they thought from the start is useless (not even trying to experiment on that). Was that for getting more customers ? I mean protoss without carrier would a blasphemy so lets introduce it and pretend its part of competetive game. Its 12 years to late to introduce scout, hell even that unit was patched and was a part of vanilla gameplay (no corsair). I feel sorry for protoss. edit: meant carrier ofc | ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
 . | ||
|
Dizzy.exe
Romania11 Posts
| ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
My God. This was such a great read. Such a great read. Two things I liked the most: 1. The bit about Day9, who let's be honest, thinks there's a solution to everything and nothing in this game is broken at all - ever. I suppose I can't blame him though, touting the game as fantastic earns him an income. 2. The bit about siege tanks. Seriously, these units are just depressing in SC2. No longer do you make an army to support your tanks, you now make tanks to support your army - until you realize that you don't really need tanks because they die in a heartbeat to fucking everything that walks and can't even one-shot a marine. On top of which, their positional strength is circumvented by a ridiculous number of units and mechanics. I long for the days of the BW siege tank. Mean, terrifying, imposing. An actual presence on the field. Good write up. Lots of work went into this. You hit so many points right on the button. | ||
|
Scufo
United States136 Posts
| ||
|
fuzzz
267 Posts
if you would have added rocks and "hero"units, it could have been written by myself ;D | ||
|
Artisian
United States115 Posts
I almost think colo, infestors, and ghosts are balanced by the time investment you need to get them, like the above mentioned from bw. I do think the units that are even later should have MORE potential than these, so we have a clear reason to tech. | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
However, it still has the problems that all of these types of articles have. There are statements that you make here that you do not back up at all. You say that static defences are worse, without any statistical or even anecdotal evidence of this, you claim the tank is bad, despite the fact that it is a key unit in 2/3 matchups, there more. This is well done, but it needs more. Also note, since when did Phoenix become a low micro unit? Just because it doesn't require the micro you expect it to, doesn't mean that in the arms of an expert it isn't infinitely more powerful than in the hands of a n00b. I think it was ToD vs Sheth at Dreamhack Winter 2011 where I saw this. The game on Tal'darim displayed truly amazing Phoenix micro, a level above any pheonix play I have seen on any Toss streams. It most certainly is a mircoable unit, what you are saying is absurd. Oh, and as the guy below me pointed, BW had anti micro moves as well, that never seems to be mentioned. I'm not for concussive shell, but I think that properly responded too forcefield provides an interesting dynamic. Watch Select (medivacs picking up and dropping bio behind the forcefields or Stephano (3 control groups (I know, who does that!) of roaches for constant flanks) for how forcefields cause good micro and positioning. | ||
|
VGhost
United States3616 Posts
Compare force field and stasis. Stasis is the absolute definition of "prevents any micro" spells, yet is a critical component of PvT strategy. The only argument I can see for stasis on your bases is that it works because it goes "all the way" in that the units can't be microed against either. My gut reaction is to say that SC2 spells are actually fine in concept... but need to be higher cost with higher damage (either direct damage or forced micro cost), but that's an observation based on watching games only. Essentially my theory is that being able to use spells for area control (cf. swarm, stasis, and the fact that plague, storm, ensnare, EMP have to be dodged) would force mechanics higher, while concentrating cost + damage makes the decision to cast harder and adds strategic considerations. Consider e.g. a higher damage, higher cost fungal with increased radius - we might end with an insta-kill threat forcing marine spreads, but also the Zerg has to pick and choose... which might require unit buffs, idk. I'm speculating here. | ||
|
fuzzz
267 Posts
| ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
| ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
And in the zerg matchup they are simply the counter to all high tier units. There was a good reason why in BW the Science vessel, a much more vulnerable and expensive unit, had the EMP, and even then, like storm, it had to be researched. And as far as marauders go, to quote Artosis a bit more, terran should not have the ability to roam the map without any tech/aoe, which is what the hp of marauders allows them to do. edit: forgot about the tank stuff Making blanket statements like "siege tanks are terrible vs toss because pros say so" mean very little, just look at zergs history with the infestor, I have not seen the specific pos comment you allude to but I think we can all agree that Day9 has a better understanding of th game. Seriously, go watch it, he does it with examples of pro games. | ||
|
Big G
Italy835 Posts
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing. Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
omgimonfire15
United States233 Posts
A: On micro reducing units, you look at the micro only after the spells are cast, in order to avoid such spells (some of which are broken in the hands of a good player) better micro/unit positioning is needed. I could easily say lockdown makes the game microless because units cannot move for extended periods of time (granted its not AOE but with enough ghosts, one can nullify half of the opponenets army). I think a more correct title would be units that reduce your opponents options if the spell/effect is successful. Sentries: I agree with your point on forcefields being necessary but needing hp. One of the new strange protoss spellcasters can make barriers around minerals that have hp. A similar concept would be good for forcefields. But forcefields clearly require micro, mechanics, and skill to use that can distinguish good players from bad players. A video of destiny raging at his student for bad forcefields and a video of MC doing godly forcefields against ghost emps (that outrange forcefields) comes to mind. Fungal growth is in my opinion overpowered for the stunning and aoe damage. Blizzard recognized this and nerfed it throughout its patches which is a good thing. It is still a bit cheap but it is getting closer to balanced in my opinion. But the thing is, not everyone is using the abillity to its fullest extent (i think ghosts also fall into this catagory). These are units that if used correctly are IMBA, but players aren't good enough at mechanics to pull it off. However, if we introduce the cloud abillity from the viper in HOTS, as mentioned in other threads, it is going to be completely imbalanced. Either take away stun, or take away cloud. Simple as that. Concussive shells i don't think are bad or have a overwhelming advantage and impact on micro. It only really shows when there are small engagements, but i noticed in large engagements, the mauraders tend to focus on 1-3 slow units while the rest of the army escapes. If it bothers you that much, perhaps make the upgrade require a factory like nitro packs? B: I disagree with the fact that there are units that require no micro. Some units we have not seen great micro from, but as stated before, people are BAD. Colossi potential has not been reached yet. The cliff abillity is used more as a defensive keep your unit alive technique. But the problem on the offense is that colossi are lategame, and lategame, there are many units so if you try to skip cliffs between two bases, the enemy will just send like 20 roachs to each side to destroy it. Or bring 10 mutalisks/corrupters/vikings to demolish it. With more mechanical players, i think colossi potential will be drawn out. Remember warp prisim colossi play? You say to day 9 what if he a moves? Well doesn't matter, i'll bring mauraders, roachs, stalkers, you name it. Colossi are units that bring great rewards when microed. If you don't micro colossi, or your stalkers correctly, they all die to experienced players very quickly. When I saw the roach preview, i don't know what you saw, but all i saw was IMBA. How can an armored unit with high hp and passive regeneration be balanced at all? The first roach was 1 supply, 2 armor, passive regeneration above ground. That is quite frankly ridiculous and I am glad they nerfed it. I fail to see how roachs though, are different from any generic footsoldier, they can be microed to kite, focusfire, and/or flank. I fail to see why roachs are microless units. Thor i completely agree with. When i first saw it, i thought it had natural small splash damage, and good antiair with a kick ass casual abillity. Then i found out it had no splash. No big deal, its abillity is cool. Well abillity has no splash either and takes time to use. No biggie, it can be used against mass mutas in zergling muta play! Magic box was invented. Then I gave up. Thors are too slow to micro effectively and are good in mech play in that they are strong, but the potential it had was snuffed. Phoenix, i can see why you would think micro is decreased with move attack, but phoenix is mainly used for gravitation beam or in large flocks. They are rather fragile too, and positioning and moving phoenixes correctly can be beautiful. Still, I agree that move attack is not necessary but I don't think it damages the game as much. C: No zone control units: Not much to say besides zone control units still exist but it is more emphasized on armies controlling territory rather than one unit. Seige tanks: Oh no immortals. Too bad I have marines that are supper effective against immortals, and stalkers when outnumbering them (and when do they not outnumber them). Zealots? Oh wait, I have seige tanks. Colossi? Build vikings. Seige tank likes are still ridiculously hard to break with protoss when food is equal without taking large losses. Tanks or any unit should not be able to hold positions by themselves, I don't see why you would want that. Terran wants to defend? leave a few seige tanks at home and send your entire army out. No biggie. I fail to see why banelings cannot be used as map control. The fact that if they fail, they are useless separates players who know the maps and make good decisions from those who are retarded. They are not used commonly enough though, that players don't worry about them and don't have a raven, observer, or overseer with them. If good players frequently use them, then detection will be brought. But the thing is detection is actually brought the most against zerg. I will get into that later. But your post seems off point. You talk about map control, but start reminiscing on how beautiful the microable lurker was. banelings can be good map control, just give it time. Burrowed MOVING banelings however, are completely broken in my eyes. While the lurker does not explode, it does not have the sheer damage and AOE that banelings do. 10 banelings can decimate a terran bio army and if you can position burrowed banelings... oh lord. Lets just say if HOTS stays the same, you will see almost all zerg matchups being infestor/viper/ling/bling. I would just like to mention here one of the best zone control things in zerg, creep tumors and overlords. Creep is one of the best area controlling things in the entire game. They provide vision, movement boost, and forces opponenets to go around and kill the cloaked tumors if they wish to nullify that advantage. Overlords can creep harass naturals so that the zerg know when an expansion is probably going to be and delay the expansion itself. Static defenses are more potent then you know. 10 mutlisks can usually destroy a couple turrents and harass. But many pro players don't. why? Because of cost efficiency. A turret is cheap and gasless. Lategame, one can spam them. Bunkers are salvagable and cheap as well. Zerg towers can move. Protoss canons can be built with a pylon. Static defenses while perhaps not as strong, still provide great map control due to mobillity and cost. Sure three spine crawlers are nothing. But what about 10? What about 20? What if they are pushing closer due to creep spread and the army supporting it? Same can be said of all other defensive structures. | ||
| ||
