|
On August 06 2012 12:07 Sporadic44 wrote:Show nested quote +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 But talking about the new units and game changes through the frame of reference of the "death ball" is in my mind, an outdated and useless way of thinking about the game.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?
Sorry this is not "splitting" your units up. Sending 4 zealots to his base while i move my 192 supply army into the middle of the map is still having a giant deathball. In BW you would literally be fighting ALL over the map. Fucking everywhere. In this you might have one tiny fight in your base and boom deathball fight at mid. You don't see groups of 20-30 units covering all sorts of different areas. And it makes the game boring as fuck to watch. Xel'naga towers themselves need to be removed. Want more vision? Send out more units.
|
You guys are overlooking one MAJOR thing. Sure, you can add buffs to units and maybe even add some new ones, but changing the entire engine of a game? That's insane. The reason most of your ideas won't even be bothered a glance is because they are WAY too radical. You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
|
On August 10 2012 01:34 TaterT0ts wrote:
You guys are overlooking one MAJOR thing. Sure, you can add buffs to units and maybe even add some new ones, but changing the entire engine of a game? That's insane. The reason most of your ideas won't even be bothered a glance is because they are WAY too radical. You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
The game engine doesn't need to be touched. Every change that is needed to remove deathball play can be done by changing a few values found in the SC2 map editor. Blizzard just needs to make these the standard settings.
|
On August 08 2012 08:37 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 12:07 Sporadic44 wrote: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? Sorry this is not "splitting" your units up. Sending 4 zealots to his base while i move my 192 supply army into the middle of the map is still having a giant deathball. In BW you would literally be fighting ALL over the map. Fucking everywhere. In this you might have one tiny fight in your base and boom deathball fight at mid. You don't see groups of 20-30 units covering all sorts of different areas. And it makes the game boring as fuck to watch. Xel'naga towers themselves need to be removed. Want more vision? Send out more units.
4 zealots and 192 supply army?
that means you have 0 workers.
|
On August 10 2012 02:07 CodeskyE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:37 Infernal_dream wrote:On August 06 2012 12:07 Sporadic44 wrote: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? Sorry this is not "splitting" your units up. Sending 4 zealots to his base while i move my 192 supply army into the middle of the map is still having a giant deathball. In BW you would literally be fighting ALL over the map. Fucking everywhere. In this you might have one tiny fight in your base and boom deathball fight at mid. You don't see groups of 20-30 units covering all sorts of different areas. And it makes the game boring as fuck to watch. Xel'naga towers themselves need to be removed. Want more vision? Send out more units. 4 zealots and 192 supply army? that means you have 0 workers.
Which is only possible if you're terran. So how did he get those zealots????
I like the idea of reducing the # of units you may select back down to 12.
|
On August 10 2012 02:07 CodeskyE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:37 Infernal_dream wrote:On August 06 2012 12:07 Sporadic44 wrote: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? Sorry this is not "splitting" your units up. Sending 4 zealots to his base while i move my 192 supply army into the middle of the map is still having a giant deathball. In BW you would literally be fighting ALL over the map. Fucking everywhere. In this you might have one tiny fight in your base and boom deathball fight at mid. You don't see groups of 20-30 units covering all sorts of different areas. And it makes the game boring as fuck to watch. Xel'naga towers themselves need to be removed. Want more vision? Send out more units. 4 zealots and 192 supply army? that means you have 0 workers.
/facepalm
|
On August 10 2012 01:34 TaterT0ts wrote:
You guys are overlooking one MAJOR thing. Sure, you can add buffs to units and maybe even add some new ones, but changing the entire engine of a game? That's insane. The reason most of your ideas won't even be bothered a glance is because they are WAY too radical. You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
I dont get this. Its been over 3 years since launch and im pretty sure over 60% of the starcraft pop hates the collsi and would rather have the reaver. I dont see why, other than guarding their own ego, that blizzard would not swap the units.
|
On August 10 2012 02:11 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 02:07 CodeskyE wrote:On August 08 2012 08:37 Infernal_dream wrote:On August 06 2012 12:07 Sporadic44 wrote: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? Sorry this is not "splitting" your units up. Sending 4 zealots to his base while i move my 192 supply army into the middle of the map is still having a giant deathball. In BW you would literally be fighting ALL over the map. Fucking everywhere. In this you might have one tiny fight in your base and boom deathball fight at mid. You don't see groups of 20-30 units covering all sorts of different areas. And it makes the game boring as fuck to watch. Xel'naga towers themselves need to be removed. Want more vision? Send out more units. 4 zealots and 192 supply army? that means you have 0 workers. Which is only possible if you're terran. So how did he get those zealots???? I like the idea of reducing the # of units you may select back down to 12.
I personally, do not. It was said earlier that intentionally fucking up UI is a big taboo. However, it may be a last resort.
|
colloxi are wrost unit the game. sometimes i wonder why they gave up on the reaver for that.
|
Why does the colossus get so much hate? Brood lords are pretty similar units.
|
On August 26 2012 11:05 Phanekim wrote:
colloxi are wrost unit the game. sometimes i wonder why they gave up on the reaver for that.
DB happened. Terrible, Terrible Dmg happened.
|
On August 08 2012 08:25 Cutlery wrote:
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.
And Terran is dying left and right. David Kim's solution == Give Terran their own deathball unit, warhound.
|
Need a mechanism to make it inherently disadvantageous to have a big ball of units.
Extreme case: whenever >x food of units are inside a circle of radius y, they all blow up.
More practically, perhaps there should be units or spells with good splash damage to discourage bunched up groups of units. For example right now in TvX, T usually doesn't want to bunch everything together because of fungal, storm/colo, and tanks.
Stuff like oracle and tempest just reduces the size of deathball by like less than 10 food. Instead of x-food deathballs we'll just get x-10 ball instead of something like x/3, x/3, x/3 groups of units.
|
On August 10 2012 01:34 TaterT0ts wrote:
You guys are overlooking one MAJOR thing. Sure, you can add buffs to units and maybe even add some new ones, but changing the entire engine of a game? That's insane. The reason most of your ideas won't even be bothered a glance is because they are WAY too radical. You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
First of all, we can expect anything we want, we're the customer. We might not get it but we can expect it.
Secondly, unit spacing and movement could be drastically improved within the existing engine. Mods like SC2BW and Starbow have demonstrated this.
|
On August 10 2012 01:34 TaterT0ts wrote:You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
Yes you can O.o
|
On August 10 2012 01:34 TaterT0ts wrote:
You guys are overlooking one MAJOR thing. Sure, you can add buffs to units and maybe even add some new ones, but changing the entire engine of a game? That's insane. The reason most of your ideas won't even be bothered a glance is because they are WAY too radical. You can't expect a game company to rework their entire game because it's 'bad'.
You are overlooking one major thing: Blizzard is changing the whole game anyways by adding units which add totally new concepts to the game anyways. The "cloaking field" of the Oracle, the "super cannon" of the Mothership Core, the "abduct an expensive unit" Viper ability, the "22 range haha-you-cant-see-me-while-I-am-shooting-you" Tempest, the mine for Terrans ... they ALL are new and potentially very broken game concepts for SC2 and thus the whole game has to be changed anyways.
The easiest example to expplain it is probably the Oracle and its cloaking field, which is a remake of the Arbiter ... kinda. The Arbiter and its cloaking field doesnt work for SC2 simply because Overlords lost their ability to detect and the energy for Terran Orbitals is used mostly for MULEs (and it is NEEDED for that job); the Arbiter would very clearly be totally imbalanced in SC2 while the single and rather sluggish Mothership isnt. Thus you have a disruption of the game balance of huge proportions just by adding this skill to the game and it is caused by BLIZZARD.
This is yet another "nerf it too hard and it becomes useless leave it too strong and it is very overpowered" ability ... just like the others I mentioned above; its not as simple as adjusting the Roach supply up and its armor down, because the "fine line" between OP and useless doesnt exist for them. With Roaches and regular fighting units you can make up for them being slightly underpowered by bringing more of them, but many of the units which Blizzard adds in HotS only require one (or at least very few) of them to make a difference. Even one Infestor can be very very OP if he hits a perfect Fungal Growth and thats the problem with more or less all of the new junk which Dustin and David came up with.
|
itll all be a little crazy during the beta, but itll be worked out, if you not having fun watching and playing sc2 now you hang up keyboard and mouse youll never be happy, blizz will fix it! Over 12 yrs of competitive gaming says so
|
On August 26 2012 11:16 Tao367 wrote:
Why does the colossus get so much hate? Brood lords are pretty similar units.
For me, it's because they move so damn fast for a Siege unit with long range splash. They also walk over your units, so you can literally 1-a your army around and the Colossus will mostly stay safe with your deathball.
IMO Colossus is wayyyyyyyy more 1-a friendly than the Broodlord.
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
On August 26 2012 20:49 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:16 Tao367 wrote:
Why does the colossus get so much hate? Brood lords are pretty similar units. For me, it's because they move so damn fast for a Siege unit with long range splash. They also walk over your units, so you can literally 1-a your army around and the Colossus will mostly stay safe with your deathball. IMO Colossus is wayyyyyyyy more 1-a friendly than the Broodlord.
Really? I think Broodlords probably take that title for firing out units that stop you from moving. :p
|
On August 26 2012 20:50 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 20:49 SarcasmMonster wrote:On August 26 2012 11:16 Tao367 wrote:
Why does the colossus get so much hate? Brood lords are pretty similar units. For me, it's because they move so damn fast for a Siege unit with long range splash. They also walk over your units, so you can literally 1-a your army around and the Colossus will mostly stay safe with your deathball. IMO Colossus is wayyyyyyyy more 1-a friendly than the Broodlord. Really? I think Broodlords probably take that title for firing out units that stop you from moving. :p
Especially since the rate of fire is so high that you will have a "tight wall of free units" within a second or two if you have 4+ Broodlords. Thats the main reason why it is very strong and the slow movement doesnt really count as a drawback (during a fight) since you can slow down flanking maneuvers by ground forces with cheap Zerglings and intelligent useage of Fungal Growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
