EPT[HOTS] Breaking up the Death Ball - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
Imagine SC2 with less unit clumping, limited control groups and removing auto-mining. Then I would probably love SC2 almost as much as BW. | ||
|
rename
Estonia329 Posts
Control groups limits with current pathing system actually would add to the deathball effect - since now you have to spend more time setting up groups ( the main effect of limited groups ) - leaving less mutlitasking capability for harrassment. ( Horrible for spectator since setting up control groups is quite invisible , compared to say 2-3 drops at the same time). Looking at the modified movement test map thread, changing pathing might be a good thing tho - this post has THE main reason for deathballs http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=349968¤tpage=19#362 , its near impossible to stall a deathball steamroll. Pathing, AoE changes and new maps might help that - and modders should indeed experiment that - if at some point they find the magic recipe that is really, really good - then i could see either blizzard trying it in an expansion ( the community will be split by expansions anyway so there is still two time-windows safe for experimentation ) | ||
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
On July 04 2012 17:20 rename wrote: Unless you are sub 30APM or something, a-moving your whole army in 1 or several control groups really isnt much different - so there is not much reason to discuss about that. Control groups limits with current pathing system actually would add to the deathball effect - since now you have to spend more time setting up groups ( the main effect of limited groups ) - leaving less mutlitasking capability for harrassment. ( Horrible for spectator since setting up control groups is quite invisible , compared to say 2-3 drops at the same time). No there are just as much or more action in BW games. Harder macro does not equal less exciting games. Just makes the game harder. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On July 04 2012 18:42 OrchidThief wrote: They're not going to change the fundamental mechanics. Large control groups, better AI pathing, etc. Is there to stay. The only knobs left to turn are unit design and maps. Clumping was an arbitrary decision, it's in no way "better." But yes, the fluid pathing is here to stay and there isn't anything we can do to make unit movements more retarded, but we can make a push for collision changes and no auto-clump. Also, this would be a necessary change to really go in the proper direction with units. And maps, by extension. | ||
|
willyallthewei
United States265 Posts
On July 04 2012 16:34 0neder wrote: You can easily go a long ways, you buff the hell out of splash abilities, make units spacing more generous and heterogenous and make bigger open maps. You are correct, this is not a hard design problem to solve if Blizzard is willing to give up the fairly retarded design philosophy of "lets reduce stalemates and make more fast hitting unit" That is the main reason that siege tanks were nerfed so much and the reason that immortals exist, the immortal was not originally designed as an armored unit counter, it was originally supposed to be a tank against siege weapons to break siege lines. The philosophy of avoiding strong positional units is what leads to stalemates because neither player can break up their death ball into pieces without being afraid of a portion of the ball being killed. When units are very strong they need to be immobile, conversley when they are very weak, they need to be extremely mobile, the existence of "middle" units is what really hurts this dynamic. This problem is especially present with Protoss where their robo units (Immortals and colossus) are barely less mobile than the rest of their units, while being vastly superior in strength. The situations that everyone wants to see are powerful units such as templar and siege tanks guarding critical areas such as a choke or a forward base. The presence of two templar is difficult to crack for even a massive amount of MM, and the presence of a few siege tanks with a building wall is unbreakable for zerglings. If you extend this philosophy, we can safely say that if you vastly increase the upfront damage of Colossus so much so that they burn through infantry instantly, but vastly reduce the mobility of colossus, so much so that they are slower or as slow as templar, you will create situations where Terran is forced to drop even more than they are now. Conversely, if you then vastly increase the damage output of siege tanks, you will start to see siege lines vs. carefully positioned colossus with warp prisms and drops going off everywhere. This is of course, also the "stale mate" that Blizzard doesn't want. Well Blizzard, make up your freaking mind. | ||
|
SilSol
Sweden2744 Posts
 | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
Personally, I feel the game moves way too fast. While I realize people have said this before, I don't think it's truly emphasized here. One of the easiest comparisons I can make is upgrades. As a Terran in BW, it takes a total of 894 real time seconds to go from 0/0 to 3/3. In SC2, it takes a total of 570 blizzard time seconds. There's double gas and 8 mineral patches per base, some having gold minerals, which allows you to have a much stronger economy on a smaller number of bases. Coupled with the macro mechanics of SC2 that articfically makes the game even more faster (MULE + Reactors, Spawn Larva, Cronoboost), as well as Blizzard Time, and I really felt that the game has always been a race to the 200/200 money composition AKA the Deathball because it's that much easier to get what you want, and Upgrades cause so much of a landslide that it really limits the value in each individual unit created, or in same cases just outright neglect them (Carrier, Void Ray, BCs, and nowadays Factory units). Upgrades just makes way too much of an impact on this game, unlike in BW where regardless if you have 3/3 200/200 Infantry, they're still going to die horribly to Reavers like cows going into a slaughter. 3/3 Dragoons are still going to die horribly if they run into 20 Siege Tanks covered with a field of mines, and Zerg in general just had much stronger and strategical units and the SC2 Zerg just seems like a shadow of it's former self. So yeah, perhaps more Splash damage would help. But I personally feel none of that is going to matter with how fast the game is. The Early and Mid game needs to be extended by a significant margin to add more value to individual units. Right now it's pretty much just going through a checklist, and as a player it personally makes me sad that numbers are the only thing that matters right now. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On July 04 2012 19:17 HeroMystic wrote: ... Upgrades just makes way too much of an impact on this game, unlike in BW where regardless if you have 3/3 200/200 Infantry, they're still going to die horribly to Reavers like cows going into a slaughter. 3/3 Dragoons are still going to die horribly if they run into 20 Siege Tanks covered with a field of mines, and Zerg in general just had much stronger and strategical units and the SC2 Zerg just seems like a shadow of it's former self. So yeah, perhaps more Splash damage would help. But I personally feel none of that is going to matter with how fast the game is. The Early and Mid game needs to be extended by a significant margin to add more value to individual units. Right now it's pretty much just going through a checklist, and as a player it personally makes me sad that numbers are the only thing that matters right now. That's my main concern right now for HOTS, Zerg, and to a lesser extent Protoss. Protoss AOE needs some rework (collosus), and Zerg are lacking positional units entirely. That's why I keep saying over and over and over that we need the lurker instead of the swarm host. Terran, just put the widowmine on the raven replacing the hunter seeker missile, making it cost 50 energy, and you're all good to go + buff tanks. As for gamespeed I definitely agree, that is one of the focuses of the FRB thread (it's called something else now iirc), reducing mineral income rate so that the game slows down a bit. I could agree with that - also reducing the effect of macro mechanics (less larva spawned, less mule income). | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
The speed of the game limits the amount of actions you can execute during a fight by a lot. Then you have the current clumping AI on top of that. There is a limit to human speed and APM and even the best micro players like MKP can only go so far. I see too many people say: "Give it time, pro players will continue to get better and micro more and split more." However, the limits are almost reached already with the ingame speed of SC2 being a major factor. The proposed clumping change should definitely be promoted and tested, and the discussions about the effects of AOE play a big role in its succes. It is the best we can do right now without completely throwing the core fundamentals of the game out of the window. | ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
| ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On July 04 2012 19:39 jpak wrote: SC2 takes way too little time to reach max supply. this is another problem related to some high supply units like colossi/ultra/thor | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On July 04 2012 19:41 Garmer wrote: this is another problem reletaed to some high supply units like colossi/ultra/thor I'm going to make a blog post listing the changes I want to see for HOTS, lol. I doubt all of them will be feasible but I think most if not all of them would make the game better. That's really an issue with the macro mechanic. That and the high damage output of some units due to clumping and the AI forces higher supply counts. I would definitely like to see 2 supply tanks, 4 supply ultras, 1 supply marauders/hydras etc etc etc. Also things like spawn larva should be dropped down to +2 larva for inject instead. And Barrin's new idea (not FRB, 4 mineral trips) should be implemented to compensate. I'm not going to say anything about the collosus b/c I think it's just a bad unit. Thor is sort of bad as well, but not nearly as much as the collosus. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
Im all for it because it means less deathball, longer fights, more defining moments like storms actually dealing real damage etc. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
nakam
Sweden245 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:13 emc wrote: I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker. if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units. This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing. Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On July 04 2012 20:15 nakam wrote: This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing. Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer. Just witnessed that video. They need to implement this. I mean wow, armies actually look like armies marching to battle.. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
On July 04 2012 20:15 Garmer wrote: 1 supply marauder is too much, it's fine at 2, but definitely we need 4 supply for thor, colossus and ultra, also 2 supply tank and immortal(2 supply could be too much but if you think about it, it is already hard to spam them because they need the robotic facility) Yeah I changed my mind about the marauder too. Maybe if they slashed health/damage a bit. I'm also looking at roaches/hydras. For the efficiency of an immortal I think 3 supply is perfect. unless the collosus is changed I think it's fine where it is b/c it really just promotes deathball play. It can't control space b/c it is too weak on its own. Ultra buff to 4 supply would make them perfect for HOTS. | ||
|
LavaLava
United States235 Posts
On July 04 2012 20:15 nakam wrote: This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing. Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer. Yeah, it's kind of funny that Blizzard made stuff like Oracles, so that you'd have one unit standing around near the enemy's base, so they could say it "breaks up the deathball". when really, 75% of the problem is just that SC2 units are exceedingly good and clumping up into deathballs, and will try to do it whether the player likes it or not, any time he moves them. | ||
| ||
