|
On August 06 2012 11:20 Sporadic44 wrote:
Seriously? The "Deathball" is still a thing? At this point in professional play I dont even think about the deathball concept anymore. I never see an army and think to myself, "My god that's unbeatable!", or "wow what a boring/skilless strategy" Granted sometimes people get one A'd after being behind all game and down 50+ supply etc. That happens to me in my own games. But in those situations I lost the game before the army became a "deathball". Those of you still actively talking about this topic as a serious concern of the game, please show me the pro-level game where a player doesn't micro his 200/200 army at all and still wins.
The only thing I agree with about the OP is that armies move in large balls. That doesn't really bother me though. A Protoss can walk around in his big ball all day but if he doesn't micro properly against my Infestor Broodlord then he's gonna lose. What is the point in talking about this concept still. Give me a reason to care about unit pathing and unlimited unit selection, barring the BW nostalgia and balance whines/people who can't analyze the real factors behind their losses.
All that said, I think the new units in HOTS will further diversify the type of strategies and gameplay we see utilized by pros and casual players alike. But talking about the new units and game changes through the frame of reference of the "death ball" is in my mind, an outdated and useless way of thinking about the game.
I respect your opinion on that but I think you have to grant the possibility that the critique some people have is not just "I'm a cranky old man" syndrome, or people in denial about the reasons behind their losses. Personally I come from a Frozen Throne background and in that game it seemed that your level of micro could have a much greater influence in effecting the outcome of a battle. We could have equal army compositions and food, like exactly the same, and have even positioning at hte onset of the battle. And one side could come out significantly ahead. one side could win the battle without the loss of a single unit. I miss that aspect of Frozen Throne in SC2. I understand there are reasons the games cant be exactly the same but I would say IN GENERAL that... I would like in-battle micro to have a bigger influence on who comes out victorious--- and I'd like the game not to hinge on one gigantic battle. As it is, too often the winner of the game is obvious once someone comes out ahead in tech/food.
|
On August 06 2012 11:20 Sporadic44 wrote:
Seriously? The "Deathball" is still a thing? At this point in professional play I dont even think about the deathball concept anymore. I never see an army and think to myself, "My god that's unbeatable!", or "wow what a boring/skilless strategy" Granted sometimes people get one A'd after being behind all game and down 50+ supply etc. That happens to me in my own games. But in those situations I lost the game before the army became a "deathball". Those of you still actively talking about this topic as a serious concern of the game, please show me the pro-level game where a player doesn't micro his 200/200 army at all and still wins.
The only thing I agree with about the OP is that armies move in large balls. That doesn't really bother me though. A Protoss can walk around in his big ball all day but if he doesn't micro properly against my Infestor Broodlord then he's gonna lose. What is the point in talking about this concept still. Give me a reason to care about unit pathing and unlimited unit selection, barring the BW nostalgia and balance whines/people who can't analyze the real factors behind their losses.
All that said, I think the new units in HOTS will further diversify the type of strategies and gameplay we see utilized by pros and casual players alike. But talking about the new units and game changes through the frame of reference of the "death ball" is in my mind, an outdated and useless way of thinking about the game.
I think you are missing the point. Saying your infestor broodlord army will beat the protoss army w/o micro doesn't mean there is no deathball; it just means you can use your deathball more or less efficiently. The idea. as far as I understand, is that the optimal choice in most games is to focus all of your units into one big fight that decides the game. It is relatively rare that a major engagement between two large armies fails to decide the game.
In contrast, consider the series between Hasuobs and Thorzain earlier today. I won't spoil it, but I think it was remarkable that they had several engagements that worked out to be reasonably equal trades in army value or supply. This meant that each engagement was important, and the management going on between the battles was also important.
Ideally, we would like this to be more common, particularly at the professional level. Players should have some reason why grouping everything together and going for one big, all-or-nothing, fight is suboptimal. I think the pro players are making that happen somewhat, but I wouldn't mind some changes to make it more common.
The lower tech recall ability proposed for HoTS seems like an attempt to address this. It means you can send out a force long before the deathball stage and simply bring it back if it turns out to be overwhelmed. I know I'm inviting negative responses by bringing this up, but BW had things like lurkers above a ramp and spider mines which also allowed one to control space w/o devoting much in the way of supply and gave more aggressive options as a result.
|
On August 06 2012 11:37 kill619 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2012 11:15 DashedHopes wrote:
I Still think that theorizing about HOTS a game not even in beta yet is kind of pointless And it's been stated multiple times in many threads like this to people who respond like you did, its's better to say something about potential problems now to raise awareness than it is to get the game and have it be crap. The whole reason beta and alpha builds are shown to the public is for them to be critique so that things can be tweaked. It doesn't do anyone any good to no talk about HOTS. On August 06 2012 11:20 Sporadic44 wrote:
Seriously? The "Deathball" is still a thing? At this point in professional play I dont even think about the deathball concept anymore. I never see an army and think to myself, "My god that's unbeatable!", or "wow what a boring/skilless strategy" Granted sometimes people get one A'd after being behind all game and down 50+ supply etc. That happens to me in my own games. But in those situations I lost the game before the army became a "deathball". Those of you still actively talking about this topic as a serious concern of the game, please show me the pro-level game where a player doesn't micro his 200/200 army at all and still wins.
The only thing I agree with about the OP is that armies move in large balls. That doesn't really bother me though. A Protoss can walk around in his big ball all day but if he doesn't micro properly against my Infestor Broodlord then he's gonna lose. What is the point in talking about this concept still. Give me a reason to care about unit pathing and unlimited unit selection, barring the BW nostalgia and balance whines/people who can't analyze the real factors behind their losses.
All that said, I think the new units in HOTS will further diversify the type of strategies and gameplay we see utilized by pros and casual players alike. But talking about the new units and game changes through the frame of reference of the "death ball" is in my mind, an outdated and useless way of thinking about the game. No one is arguing that "Deathballs" don't need to be microed. People are saying that there are no incentives, through unit design, the dps of units, game speed etc, to ever separate your units. For example, the protoss ball, in sc2's current form, will stay as a 200/200 army always defending or attacking in 1 location and has no reason to ever separate itself because if half of the army were to attack and the other player were to his whole army vs half of the protoss player he will almost always lose.
I see split armies all the time. Not 50/50 of course that makes no sense. But for instance, a drop at a newly created zerg base while Terran moves into vital position. Protoss warping in a few zealots or dts from a warp prism in the same manner. As a zerg player I split my army all the time. A nydus with a few lings and an ultra and an infestor on shakuras at the Terrans expo while I move my broodlords forward to kill the tanks on the highground above his third. That happened yesterday. and virtually anytime I get lings passed my opponents forces I always split them into his mineral lines. Of course a few burrowed infestors at expos. I can think of countless examples. ZvZ sending my lings to his third while I move my roaches to intercept his army coming from his natural. What other type of incentives would you like to see to split your units up?
|
On August 06 2012 11:52 phyren wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2012 11:20 Sporadic44 wrote:
Seriously? The "Deathball" is still a thing? At this point in professional play I dont even think about the deathball concept anymore. I never see an army and think to myself, "My god that's unbeatable!", or "wow what a boring/skilless strategy" Granted sometimes people get one A'd after being behind all game and down 50+ supply etc. That happens to me in my own games. But in those situations I lost the game before the army became a "deathball". Those of you still actively talking about this topic as a serious concern of the game, please show me the pro-level game where a player doesn't micro his 200/200 army at all and still wins.
The only thing I agree with about the OP is that armies move in large balls. That doesn't really bother me though. A Protoss can walk around in his big ball all day but if he doesn't micro properly against my Infestor Broodlord then he's gonna lose. What is the point in talking about this concept still. Give me a reason to care about unit pathing and unlimited unit selection, barring the BW nostalgia and balance whines/people who can't analyze the real factors behind their losses.
All that said, I think the new units in HOTS will further diversify the type of strategies and gameplay we see utilized by pros and casual players alike. But talking about the new units and game changes through the frame of reference of the "death ball" is in my mind, an outdated and useless way of thinking about the game. I think you are missing the point. Saying your infestor broodlord army will beat the protoss army w/o micro doesn't mean there is no deathball; it just means you can use your deathball more or less efficiently. The idea. as far as I understand, is that the optimal choice in most games is to focus all of your units into one big fight that decides the game. It is relatively rare that a major engagement between two large armies fails to decide the game. In contrast, consider the series between Hasuobs and Thorzain earlier today. I won't spoil it, but I think it was remarkable that they had several engagements that worked out to be reasonably equal trades in army value or supply. This meant that each engagement was important, and the management going on between the battles was also important. Ideally, we would like this to be more common, particularly at the professional level. Players should have some reason why grouping everything together and going for one big, all-or-nothing, fight is suboptimal. I think the pro players are making that happen somewhat, but I wouldn't mind some changes to make it more common. The lower tech recall ability proposed for HoTS seems like an attempt to address this. It means you can send out a force long before the deathball stage and simply bring it back if it turns out to be overwhelmed. I know I'm inviting negative responses by bringing this up, but BW had things like lurkers above a ramp and spider mines which also allowed one to control space w/o devoting much in the way of supply and gave more aggressive options as a result.
Ah okay I definitely agree with what you're saying now that I understand the point a bit more. I guess thinking from a Zerg standpoint, or just how I've been playing lately I've been splitting units a lot more. To a degree I think the pros have been as well. Though I agree, the more of that we see, the better. I think we're starting to get to that point in terms of the meta game. We've gone from one base allins, to 3/4/5 base games on both sides. The game is definitely getting more complex. Instead of 4/6 gates from toss we're starting to see warp prism usage to great effect. Terrans have always been dropping of course, I wish they would nuke more. Another thing I've always felt would be strong is blue flame hellion drops throughout the game. With zerg I feel like a few rogue burrowed infestors almost always yield positive results. And lings lend themselves to splitting off from the main army due to their speed. More storm drops would also be neat.
Though that was kind of in rant form, what I'm trying to say is, I think we've been slowly seeing more split unit tactics as we've gone through the life of WoL up to this point. Surely the HOTS expansion will further the incentive to split units more. My apologies for my first rather militant first post. I guess the word "death ball" just brings me back to the early days of ZvP when two base colossus pushes were what scared me.
|
On August 03 2012 11:35 Kovaz wrote:
I have a few ideas why deathballs are so prominent that don't seem to be getting as much attention:
1) There's not really any diminishing returns on making your army bigger. You just always want to cram more stuff into the deathball because it gets so much stronger when it gets bigger. 6 colossi is more than twice as good as 3 colossi. 20 Marines are more than twice as good as 10 Marines. There are a few units that don't work this way, for example High Templar start to have diminishing returns past about 4-5 of them, but for the most time units get exponentially better the more there are together. If there were diminishing returns to increasing your deathball's size, then eventually you reach a point where units start to become more effective on their own. Maybe you reach a point where adding a 4th colossus doesn't really do much, so maybe you should instead use it to harass or get a second group going.
I'm not entirely sure how to create diminishing returns, but I have a few ideas why things work the way they do:
A) The UI makes it far easier to have a big group work at peak efficiency. In my (albeit limited) experience with BW, it was hard to get a big army all attacking at once with a good concave and all reach the battle at the same time. You have 12 dragoons? Not too hard to use them all effectively. 24 is much harder, to the point where you don't get as much out of the second group. Compare to SC2, where you can easily get, say 200 zerglings all into the fray at once without much difficulty. So in BW you get diminishing returns on a bigger army just because it was harder to make a big army work.
B) Units are too easy to use and not potent enough. Look back at BW and look at how much damage some units did. Tanks did 70. Reavers did 100. Plague could do up to 300. Compare to SC2. Tanks do 35. Colossi do 15x2. Thors do 30x2. To illustrate why this causes deathballs, I'm going to explain how the exact same thing happened to Halo.
We'll start by comparing the starting weapons, since they are used more than any other weapon by far. In Halo:CE, players used the pistol, which could kill a player in 3 shots, with near-perfect accuracy from any distance. It took a little over half a second for a perfect kill. Halo 2 introduced the BR, which could kill in 4 bursts of 3 bullets. This increased the kill time dramatically to around 1.6 seconds (IIRC). However, Halo 2 had button glitches such as the double shot and BXR that allowed kills faster than that in certain circumstances, and the BR still had perfect accuracy, meaning perfect 4-shot kills could be achieved from anywhere.
Enter Halo 3. Halo 3 re-used the BR from Halo 2, but with a few changes. It had the same 4-shot kill with bursts of 3, but the bullets now spread out, meaning that even with perfect accuracy, 4-shot kills were still next to impossible apart from very close range. That, coupled with the complete lack of any button glitches, meant that Halo 3 had even slower kill-times than Halo 2.
So, we've established that as far as the potency of an individual player, Halo CE > Halo 2 > Halo 3. Now, let's examine the effect this has on the strategy.
In Halo:CE, players would spread out across the map, trying to control the power weapons, while also trying to lock down key areas of the map. Because of the power of the pistol, a single player could be left to hold an important position, because as long as his skills were up to par, he could hold off enemy attacks while his teammates sought out other important things.
In Halo 2, a phenomenon emerged called teamshooting. Essentially, teams would try to overwhelm enemy positions by attacking single players from multiple angles and essentially trying to outnumber them. Halo 3 took this to a whole new level. Towards the end of Halo 3's lifespan as an MLG title, the optimal strategy was to take all four of your team members, and just push towards the other team. Games were essentially won and lost based on who had more players shooting at a time. People didn't spread out and try to control the map or set up in optimal positions. As long as you had more guys than them in a particular area, you would win the battle and eventually the game.
This was termed 'linear-aggressive halo' by some of the more knowledgeable halo fans, and bemoaned as the worst thing to happen to halo. Fans likened back to the glory days of Halo:CE when teams had intricate strategies of how to control certain areas of maps, and games had a more dynamic, free-flowing feel as players moved around to try to control space and look for optimal angles. Halo had essentially devolved into two rams butting heads, and whoever was stronger would win.
Sound familiar? The deathball is to starcraft what teamshooting is to halo. It's an effect that occurs when individual player/units aren't potent enough to be useful on their own, so they have to group up and fight together. Starcraft needs stronger units that have more potential to do ridiculous amounts of damage. We need more units that decimate everything and we need to stop neutering anything that become even a little bit strong. When you can hold a base with two siege tanks and a few hellions, there's more incentive to spread out and hold a lot of bases. When you need 25 tanks to deal with some zealots and immortals, you just can't afford to split them up.
/rant
Well said good sir.
Blizzard balance policy seems to revolve around this idea of homogenizing each races unit damage outputs, damage types, and unit counters. I mean if each race has unit X that fills Y role then it's balanced right? Not really.
People QQ on forums all day saying X unit is overpowered; wanting it "balanced." When really people should be arguing for each race getting their own absurdly over powered units. BW had units that were stupidly overpowered, but they were mixed among the races.
Also I would totally advocate limiting unit selection. I wouldn't go so far as to make it 12. I think a good middle ground could be reached. (maybe 20?)
Hell, give players one "grid" of 32 (4 rows of 8) and assign units grid sizes. An example could be marines are 1 grid unit, so 32 can be selected, but tanks are a 4 grid unit so 8 can only be selected.
|
Blizzard is trying too hard.
If you got rid of the Colossus/Marauder/Immortal/Roach and made splash stronger and gave Protoss the Reaver you would get rid of deathballs. The problem is the deathball is the most efficient way to use your army, make it the least efficient and people won't use them (a deathball in a concave is still a deathball, you can still have a deathball with lots of drops, a non-deathball would be having 2-3 separate squads with unique duties, as well as lots of units uniquely positioned and sprinkled all over the map). None of the new features affect the actual utility of the deathball, so you are still going to get deathballs, but you will have deathballs with a couple of units around the map.
On August 03 2012 11:35 Kovaz wrote:
I have a few ideas why deathballs are so prominent that don't seem to be getting as much attention:
1) There's not really any diminishing returns on making your army bigger. You just always want to cram more stuff into the deathball because it gets so much stronger when it gets bigger. 6 colossi is more than twice as good as 3 colossi. 20 Marines are more than twice as good as 10 Marines. There are a few units that don't work this way, for example High Templar start to have diminishing returns past about 4-5 of them, but for the most time units get exponentially better the more there are together. If there were diminishing returns to increasing your deathball's size, then eventually you reach a point where units start to become more effective on their own. Maybe you reach a point where adding a 4th colossus doesn't really do much, so maybe you should instead use it to harass or get a second group going.
I'm not entirely sure how to create diminishing returns, but I have a few ideas why things work the way they do:
A) The UI makes it far easier to have a big group work at peak efficiency. In my (albeit limited) experience with BW, it was hard to get a big army all attacking at once with a good concave and all reach the battle at the same time. You have 12 dragoons? Not too hard to use them all effectively. 24 is much harder, to the point where you don't get as much out of the second group. Compare to SC2, where you can easily get, say 200 zerglings all into the fray at once without much difficulty. So in BW you get diminishing returns on a bigger army just because it was harder to make a big army work.
B) Units are too easy to use and not potent enough. Look back at BW and look at how much damage some units did. Tanks did 70. Reavers did 100. Plague could do up to 300. Compare to SC2. Tanks do 35. Colossi do 15x2. Thors do 30x2. To illustrate why this causes deathballs, I'm going to explain how the exact same thing happened to Halo.
We'll start by comparing the starting weapons, since they are used more than any other weapon by far. In Halo:CE, players used the pistol, which could kill a player in 3 shots, with near-perfect accuracy from any distance. It took a little over half a second for a perfect kill. Halo 2 introduced the BR, which could kill in 4 bursts of 3 bullets. This increased the kill time dramatically to around 1.6 seconds (IIRC). However, Halo 2 had button glitches such as the double shot and BXR that allowed kills faster than that in certain circumstances, and the BR still had perfect accuracy, meaning perfect 4-shot kills could be achieved from anywhere.
Enter Halo 3. Halo 3 re-used the BR from Halo 2, but with a few changes. It had the same 4-shot kill with bursts of 3, but the bullets now spread out, meaning that even with perfect accuracy, 4-shot kills were still next to impossible apart from very close range. That, coupled with the complete lack of any button glitches, meant that Halo 3 had even slower kill-times than Halo 2.
So, we've established that as far as the potency of an individual player, Halo CE > Halo 2 > Halo 3. Now, let's examine the effect this has on the strategy.
In Halo:CE, players would spread out across the map, trying to control the power weapons, while also trying to lock down key areas of the map. Because of the power of the pistol, a single player could be left to hold an important position, because as long as his skills were up to par, he could hold off enemy attacks while his teammates sought out other important things.
In Halo 2, a phenomenon emerged called teamshooting. Essentially, teams would try to overwhelm enemy positions by attacking single players from multiple angles and essentially trying to outnumber them. Halo 3 took this to a whole new level. Towards the end of Halo 3's lifespan as an MLG title, the optimal strategy was to take all four of your team members, and just push towards the other team. Games were essentially won and lost based on who had more players shooting at a time. People didn't spread out and try to control the map or set up in optimal positions. As long as you had more guys than them in a particular area, you would win the battle and eventually the game.
This was termed 'linear-aggressive halo' by some of the more knowledgeable halo fans, and bemoaned as the worst thing to happen to halo. Fans likened back to the glory days of Halo:CE when teams had intricate strategies of how to control certain areas of maps, and games had a more dynamic, free-flowing feel as players moved around to try to control space and look for optimal angles. Halo had essentially devolved into two rams butting heads, and whoever was stronger would win.
Sound familiar? The deathball is to starcraft what teamshooting is to halo. It's an effect that occurs when individual player/units aren't potent enough to be useful on their own, so they have to group up and fight together. Starcraft needs stronger units that have more potential to do ridiculous amounts of damage. We need more units that decimate everything and we need to stop neutering anything that become even a little bit strong. When you can hold a base with two siege tanks and a few hellions, there's more incentive to spread out and hold a lot of bases. When you need 25 tanks to deal with some zealots and immortals, you just can't afford to split them up.
/rant
Very very good post, I like how you managed to refer to another game other than BW where a similar thing happened to prove your point. Unfortunately for many BW players (like me) we only have BW to reference to and many SC2 players as soon as they hear BW they block there ears and go "lalalaalalal! I can't hear you!", which is really frustrating for us  .
|
|
|
On July 02 2012 01:27 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:07 Fragile51 wrote:On July 02 2012 01:01 Existor wrote:
WIth new raiders you will have 1-2 less zealots/roaches or 3-4 marines less, nothing more.
It's more interesting how old unit combinations will work vs new ones. Like BattleHelions + marauders or Warhounds against protoss and zerg.
ANd also remember, that widow mine can be edited hugely, so it can take ZERO time do detonate, but it's a new ability for raven, that got cheaper cost. It's only example. That widow mine can be built from tech-lab only or realized as a new ability for Warhound. 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. Multitasking? Lol, it will take virtually no multitasking to manage 4 Oracles, since they're so fast and are guaranteed to survive.
Yeah, this is true sadly. Also, smart-casting and shift-clicking will mean you can pre-micro them, and considering bases are far away from your bases, it means you don't have to be fast.
|
I doubt limited unit selection is going to do anything. Armies are still only effective in a giant ball, you just have to use 6 hotkeys to move the army around.
|
On paper the new units are quite good with avoiding the deathball syndrome. The problem is that if you make any of the new units and the opponent doesn't, will you straight out die? Can your non-deathball units do enough to warrant building them?
Just silly questions, but something to consider. I still think that it's in player's hands to avoid deathballs, people have to prove that it's not good to group up everything and a-move around.
Hero is sometimes a good example of this. Multitasking has to evolve incredibly so that the deathballer can't cope with the multitaskers.
EDIT: One thing also to consider is that SC2 naturally makes people more lazy, there's still pros that use only like 3 control groups.(nerchio comes to mind)
BW forced you to have multiple groups, obviously yes because of the selection limit, but imagine if BW wouldn't have unlimited selection..there would be more deathballing until people figured out the game more.
Basically SC2 makes people lazy, don't tell me it's not effective to have 2 muta groups on two places harassing instead of one clump that destroys stuff a bit faster.
|
On August 03 2012 00:27 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 00:23 Felvo wrote:
ZvT in heart of the swarm will have less death balls because of the swarm host and viper while terrans can use ghosts or ravens or mines etc to break up broodlord infestor. In terms of ZvP and TvP there needs to be experimenting with builds to actually prove how effective a death ball is. It'll take months to figure out, but eventually new tactics other than the death ball will arise at least that's my opinion. Swarm Host induces DBs Mines encourages Turtling.
No, the swarm host basically takes the role of the seige tank. You can hold areas with it, plus a small amount of back up units and make it cost ineffective to attack down a particular avenue.
Mines encourage turtling no more than burrowed banelings encourage turtling.
|
I think this will make death balls smaller at the most. of course things like vipers and widow mines are going to make splitting a major thing in the game and making colssi in the back and focus firing vipers a priority. although P already does that will BroodLords.
|
On August 06 2012 19:06 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 00:27 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2012 00:23 Felvo wrote:
ZvT in heart of the swarm will have less death balls because of the swarm host and viper while terrans can use ghosts or ravens or mines etc to break up broodlord infestor. In terms of ZvP and TvP there needs to be experimenting with builds to actually prove how effective a death ball is. It'll take months to figure out, but eventually new tactics other than the death ball will arise at least that's my opinion. Swarm Host induces DBs Mines encourages Turtling. No, the swarm host basically takes the role of the seige tank. You can hold areas with it, plus a small amount of back up units and make it cost ineffective to attack down a particular avenue. Mines encourage turtling no more than burrowed banelings encourage turtling.
Swarm does not equal to Siege Tanks. It is pretty much just an extra "hatchery" or production facility that augment the size of the pre-existing deathball.
And WM serves more for a defensive purpose rather then the offensive nature of the Bannelings. And yes SCTwo Zergs IS a turtly race.
|
if they want to limit unit selection and all that, they should take an example from bw.
|
The HotS attempts to shrink the deathball are inept.
1- protoss long-range bombardment unit- that's gonna be the centerpiece of a deathball
2- protoss harass unit- only helps to spread out the ENEMY units, or make em build towers
3- Zerg caster- useless outside of deathball
4- widow mine- just a bad unit.
A solution:
1- double the damage of siege tanks, and increase range/splash a small amount.
2- double the damage of psi storm
3- reduce unit clumping so that small groups can engage large groups without being auto-destroyed
4- increase the area of effect of fungal growth
instantly, the deathball becomes impossible.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
4- increase the area of effect of fungal growth
Don't you think it's bad enough already? Even with splits fungal hits far too many units compared to the other splash spells and it's more deadly. Damage and makes you unable to move? :/
|
They only units causing deathballs are BL's and Collsi. Both do massive damage from a very long range, and need to be protected. take out those 2 units and deathball goes away fast.
|
Most players in here talking about sc2 already containing split armies have no idea what they're talking about. Watch a BW game for once and then come back.
|
On August 08 2012 08:03 Dagan159 wrote:
They only units causing deathballs are BL's and Collsi. Both do massive damage from a very long range, and need to be protected. take out those 2 units and deathball goes away fast.
No.... Just no........ Colossi is an enabler because it moves fastish, BL is an enabler because it can be stacked.
|
I think certain match-ups are way too death-ball centric. ZvP being an obvious one: It's basically either all-in or death-ball.
Terrans are rather versatile. They don't neccesarily prefer deathballs. Their units are always great, at any size. Perhaps even they prefer to avoid a deathball battle; untill they make 8 orbitals and sacrifice their SCVs atleast.
Mirror matches look alot more dynamic in general. Just because being greedy can be so dangerous.
Currently I find the death-ball style boring.
Atleast zergs have very few options to press an advantage and go for a mid-game push that isn't full of cute tactics and some luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
