a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 23:58 wcr.4fun wrote: let's not forget it's just as important as identifying the issue and making it clear to blizzard as finding a solution.
Well the solution isnt to have a thread and expect Blizzard to go "oh ok well change our game engine"
There are two options for enacting change 1) Blizzard makes HOTS units/mechamics that discourage deathball
2) The community embraces and plays a mod with the kind of pathing they want to play and it becomes the next DOTA, making blizzard take notice.
Notice I said community, not day9, not the pros. It is the people who need to play the game first.
The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
I agree that the death ball, in it's "1a" form, is horrible. However, like we see in this thread there are some people that like it, and i think A LOT of people that do not post on TL also like it.
I think the biggest changes in regards to this will come some time after LOTV when the "casuals" "i want to win easy and feel good about myself" crowd will have moved on to the next shiny thing. People want auto-aim, green compass arows that show them the way, and 1a armys.
On July 08 2012 00:29 Truenappa wrote: The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
We certainly do see some non-deathball play but to say that people might all of the sudden discover that deathballs arnt effective is a stretch.
On July 08 2012 00:29 Truenappa wrote: The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
Actually I think the lurker would do a much better job breaking up the death ball.
On July 07 2012 23:44 Archerofaiur wrote: Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 23:44 Archerofaiur wrote: Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
This is very very good maverck, the ball take a lot more space and stretches out when it moves .
I dont think MavercK's mod takes into account formation diameter (magic box) which the modified movement map uses. Do people like the bigger magic boxes or is it pointless?
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
I can understand cool big units demolishing each other and creating explosions being enjoyable to watch, but it is terrible for the players. As you get better at the game, it frustrates you to no end to deal with deathballs, regardless of the race you play (because there is a death ball that each race or player specifically hates to no end).
Nobody wants the game to be decided in literally on giant battle where the result is more or less obvious. Games should be won by outplaying your opponent. But instead, you can defend all day, get an unstoppable army, then basically 1a your way to victory. It takes no mechanical skill or tactical or strategic intelligence to do any of that. A 5 year old could do as much.
Games are better when you can't really tell who's going to win just by the sheer size of the armies of the players. Nobody likes matches that are already decided on paper, and that's basically what deathballs are.
This is my first post but i've been a long time fan of the TL site/community.
I played BW for years and was in SC2 beta on day one and the first thing i noticed was how much splash damage had suffered in the transition between games and hated it. HOTS seems to continue that. The second thing was the game was speeded up, economies are easier to grow in SC2 and max out on which is bad. The window for harass is much smaller due to this. The FRB maps/discussion and day9's suggestion to increase unit cap was very interesting to me and i fully support it, in the end it only seemed to delay the deathball. So econ/macro mechanics and splash have been on my running mental list for some time now. The third thing on my mind is always the poorly implemented high ground mechanic. Either you have it and are invincible or it doesn't exist at all. This is also bad. Now that ive read through most of this discussion, the pathing i agree could use some changing, not 100% sure about it, but i like the idea of formations sticking combined w/ the splash increase. This is still the best forum for SC, we are true fans and gamers, and i would like to see some of the great map makers get in on this and help test it out. Are there other threads i should be aware of regarding the current discussion?
On July 02 2012 01:07 Fragile51 wrote: Come on, don't act like everyone's just going to make one of these units and call it a day. Imagine having 4 oracles shutting down 4 bases of mining at the same time if you have the multitasking to pull it off. Imagine having 2 tempest on two different sides of the map, harassing the production in the main as well as the mining on the 5th. I dgaf about the new unit comps, i'm happy that large amounts of mutlitasking will be rewarded and even encouraged in HoTS.
600/600 slow capital ship harassment, please. They will kill a drone in one shot only when upgraded, so add upgrades to that. So every 6 (or was it 7) seconds you kill a drone, so in order to kill 20 drones you'll need 120 seconds, neat. Really, Tempest is just bad, bad, bad.
Imo to break up a deathball you do requre limiting of groups.
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
The deathball is a terrible concept, because it makes you put "all your eggs into one basket". This is one of the reasons why big units (Thor, Siege Tank, Immortal, Colossus, Carrier, BC) have become terrible and if you go that route and lose them ALL in one big encounter you will probably lose the entire game. That is a bad concept and having slow positional pushes where you only lose part of your army every time is much better; in other words BW gameplay.
This is a small necro but since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It turns out that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II." -Patrick Wyatt, Producer/Lead Programmer of Warcraft 1
On July 27 2012 06:56 Archerofaiur wrote: This is a small necro but since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It appears that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II."
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real. That point really isn't up for debate. Heterogenous > Homogenous. They only said it wouldn't change because they were so busy with other stuff and foolishly thought it didn't matter.
Also, to be clear: The problem is not deathballs. The problem is hyper-concentrated deathballs (in terms of map space taken up).
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real.
Do you have any statement by them to back this claim up?
No, but they'd have to be unbelievably myopic. Not even I can fathom otherwise. And I've made dozens of posts on specific shortcomings/weaknesses they have. I dunno, I guess it's possible....
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real.
Do you have any statement by them to back this claim up?
Yeah I think he made that up. Id love it if they tought that way, but judging from the numerous Dustin Browder interviews I got the impression they dont. "We will never make the pathing worse"
EPT
