|
On August 26 2012 20:40 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well, I think you are hitting the nail on the head pretty hard with the last part of the post.
It's basically impossible to look at a unit and just say whether it is going to be good as a deathball unit or not.
Just extending your roach example: It was planned as a superstrong, somewhat cheap early game unit that masses really badly due to low range and damage. In some early videos of the SC2 development, the roach was even melee.
It was basically the epitome of an anti-deathball unit by design, but a unit that you would always want to have in your army. Over time the roach got changed to what it is now, a unit that basically stays costefficient nearly up to the 200 supply (so actual ~130roach supply) ball.
Or take the colossus. Put the colossus into a game without other deathball units and then it might become (and get balanced to be) hat "cliffabuse" unit it was presented to be, as your other units won't form a protective ball.
So in conclusion, I feel like the unit design ideas are OK, it's rather the balancing of the units, that make it really hard for them to "unball".
To give some examples for this: Protoss vs Zerg, the Protoss player has a very hard time to get any kind of presence on the map, due to very weak (per cost) and slow (in comparison to zerg) units, so the way to go is to form a deathball, colossus or not. Then you look at the other side. Zergs would actually love to engage over and over again in small armies of roach/hydra/ling/bling, but because you actually cannot force those engagements early on, zerg has to play in a way that focuses on either preventing to fight a fully developed Protoss deathball, or build one on its own.
In conclusion I would say, that the problem lies within the too huge differences in army strength and too explosive growth of units in some situations, which prevents "squadlike" play. You are often left with not being able to combat your opponent, because your units are actually bad in even cost scenarios or you are simply not able to engage your opponent at all. It's more a balancing, then a design problem - in this case balancing refering to unit balance against each other, not racial/game balance.
|
On August 26 2012 21:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 20:50 Qikz wrote: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.
Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to. It's odd, as greater spire tech really is quite timely and costly to acquire, yet in so many games we see zerg tech almost straight to it and comfortably obtain a massive brood lord army.
The critical mass effect is pretty interesting. In case of the brood lord it means there is a significant power disparity between having three of them and having six of them. It basically promotes keeping them together to get the most effect. I think people find the brood lord a cool upgrade of the guardian from Brood War, and I do like them as well, but I don't think it can be helped that they are problematic when you can get so many of them so easily. On the other hand, guardians were more units that you would morph near a base to siege it - like they want with the tempest - and were not as strong in combat.
I don't think brood lords really have to be changed though, maybe all that's needed is a metagame with a lot more skirmishes and low economy, which makes it harder to get to them so easily.
|
On August 26 2012 21:23 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 21:10 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2012 20:50 Qikz wrote: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. Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to. It's odd, as greater spire tech really is quite timely and costly to acquire, yet in so many games we see zerg tech almost straight to it and comfortably obtain a massive brood lord army. The critical mass effect is pretty interesting. In case of the brood lord it means there is a significant power disparity between having three of them and having six of them. It basically promotes keeping them together to get the most effect. I think people find the brood lord a cool upgrade of the guardian from Brood War, and I do like them as well, but I don't think it can be helped that they are problematic when you can get so many of them so easily. On the other hand, guardians were more units that you would morph near a base to siege it - like they want with the tempest - and were not as strong in combat. I don't think brood lords really have to be changed though, maybe all that's needed is a metagame with a lot more skirmishes and low economy, which makes it harder to get to them so easily.
It would be pretty cool if it was actually very challenging to tech to higher tier units. They should be almost some kind of reward for outplaying your opponent in a way. Instead of just sitting back in your base like hmmm I think I'm gonna just tech to colossus now no problem, there should be ways to skillfully prevent that, and getting past the attempts to prevent you from teching up should allow you to tech up.
|
On August 26 2012 21:21 Big J wrote:
Or take the colossus. Put the colossus into a game without other deathball units and then it might become (and get balanced to be) hat "cliffabuse" unit it was presented to be, as your other units won't form a protective ball.
The thing is a "cliffabuse unit" (Colossus and Siege Tank) more or less needs a cliff to abuse on the map which you are playing on. Those have been part of the early SC2 maps, but none of the newer maps have cliffs which you can really be "safe" on and thus abuse.
On August 26 2012 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to.
You are absolutely right here. Broodlords ARE dull and boring and units with critical mass should be much harder to get ... or should they? Personally I would prefer these "mass units" to be countered by other units which are much more expensive and hard to get, but those units should counter them easily. They should also be tier 3 units and have drawbacks themselves. As for the Broodlord example I would say the counter units should be other air units ... Battlecruiser and Carrier.
|
On August 26 2012 22:06 bistan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 21:23 Grumbels wrote:On August 26 2012 21:10 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2012 20:50 Qikz wrote: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. Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to. It's odd, as greater spire tech really is quite timely and costly to acquire, yet in so many games we see zerg tech almost straight to it and comfortably obtain a massive brood lord army. The critical mass effect is pretty interesting. In case of the brood lord it means there is a significant power disparity between having three of them and having six of them. It basically promotes keeping them together to get the most effect. I think people find the brood lord a cool upgrade of the guardian from Brood War, and I do like them as well, but I don't think it can be helped that they are problematic when you can get so many of them so easily. On the other hand, guardians were more units that you would morph near a base to siege it - like they want with the tempest - and were not as strong in combat. I don't think brood lords really have to be changed though, maybe all that's needed is a metagame with a lot more skirmishes and low economy, which makes it harder to get to them so easily. It would be pretty cool if it was actually very challenging to tech to higher tier units. They should be almost some kind of reward for outplaying your opponent in a way. Instead of just sitting back in your base like hmmm I think I'm gonna just tech to colossus now no problem, there should be ways to skillfully prevent that, and getting past the attempts to prevent you from teching up should allow you to tech up.
That's impossible. Colossi and Broodlords are Z/P siege units, without them you cannot break a bunkering opponent. Thors are Mechs only anti air.
Also people want to use the units in their arsenal. It gets a little stupid if you could only build unit X after setting up 25mins for it etc. The thing rather is, that those units all don't behave very well in small armies, because they are all not costefficient on their own, but all of them mass very well, because they are all very long ranged. Don't know if this is even fixable, just from the design of those units. The only somewhat interesting T3 unit from this perspective is the Ultralisk, because it masses rather badly. However zerg mass production and the way it is balanced (kiteable, splash, high HP/armor, amount of passive investments needed) turn it again into a unit that is being used best in at least medium amounts.
|
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.
FFA You were the only Zerg... NOW YOU ARE ARBITER OF ALL THINGS!
|
On August 26 2012 22:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 21:21 Big J wrote:
Or take the colossus. Put the colossus into a game without other deathball units and then it might become (and get balanced to be) hat "cliffabuse" unit it was presented to be, as your other units won't form a protective ball. The thing is a "cliffabuse unit" (Colossus and Siege Tank) more or less needs a cliff to abuse on the map which you are playing on. Those have been part of the early SC2 maps, but none of the newer maps have cliffs which you can really be "safe" on and thus abuse. Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to. You are absolutely right here. Broodlords ARE dull and boring and units with critical mass should be much harder to get ... or should they? Personally I would prefer these "mass units" to be countered by other units which are much more expensive and hard to get, but those units should counter them easily. They should also be tier 3 units and have drawbacks themselves. As for the Broodlord example I would say the counter units should be other air units ... Battlecruiser and Carrier.
Actually, on paper the void ray is better at dealing with Brood lords, but in practice it just doesn't happen that way. Protoss air is in such a weird place in wol its hard to know what it's gonna be like in hots. Blizzard say that phoenix are now a "comfortable" counter to mass muta with the upgrade, but it still simply isn't the case. To be able to defend mass muta with phoenix you have to have opened stargate (which is relatively rare) and have enought time to get a decent number out. In my view, blizzard have negelcted the stargate in WOL, thereby limiting the stuff a protoss can do to gateway + colossus and ht.
|
On August 26 2012 22:22 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 22:06 bistan wrote:On August 26 2012 21:23 Grumbels wrote:On August 26 2012 21:10 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2012 20:50 Qikz wrote: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. Brood lords are a little bit dull as well. I think every unit that gets unstoppable in critical mass is really worrisome to have in the game and should probably be hard to get to. It's odd, as greater spire tech really is quite timely and costly to acquire, yet in so many games we see zerg tech almost straight to it and comfortably obtain a massive brood lord army. The critical mass effect is pretty interesting. In case of the brood lord it means there is a significant power disparity between having three of them and having six of them. It basically promotes keeping them together to get the most effect. I think people find the brood lord a cool upgrade of the guardian from Brood War, and I do like them as well, but I don't think it can be helped that they are problematic when you can get so many of them so easily. On the other hand, guardians were more units that you would morph near a base to siege it - like they want with the tempest - and were not as strong in combat. I don't think brood lords really have to be changed though, maybe all that's needed is a metagame with a lot more skirmishes and low economy, which makes it harder to get to them so easily. It would be pretty cool if it was actually very challenging to tech to higher tier units. They should be almost some kind of reward for outplaying your opponent in a way. Instead of just sitting back in your base like hmmm I think I'm gonna just tech to colossus now no problem, there should be ways to skillfully prevent that, and getting past the attempts to prevent you from teching up should allow you to tech up. That's impossible. Colossi and Broodlords are Z/P siege units, without them you cannot break a bunkering opponent. Thors are Mechs only anti air. Also people want to use the units in their arsenal. It gets a little stupid if you could only build unit X after setting up 25mins for it etc. The thing rather is, that those units all don't behave very well in small armies, because they are all not costefficient on their own, but all of them mass very well, because they are all very long ranged. Don't know if this is even fixable, just from the design of those units. The only somewhat interesting T3 unit from this perspective is the Ultralisk, because it masses rather badly. However zerg mass production and the way it is balanced (kiteable, splash, high HP/armor, amount of passive investments needed) turn it again into a unit that is being used best in at least medium amounts.
Meh. I think a problem with t3 units is almost all of them have an upgrade that puts them to full functionality. Except the brood lord. The first brood lord that is morphed is fully functional. No other t3 unit is, as they require research (extended thermal lance etc). A case can be made for the thor, as that ability is there but never researched.
|
On July 02 2012 09:08 Zorgaz wrote:I agree that would be awesome but Blizzard will never implement this =/. Buff Tanks for HOTS! Also do something with the collosi T_T, the Reaver is to this day so much better
Maybe if Kripp suggests it they will put it in the game in the next patch.
|
OK OK OK. Want to give advice for u weaklings.
You should NEVER EVER risk your whole army NO MATTER WHAT!
Why? Think of real life, you will never just send your whole army head to head against another army if there is other options... its like playing with luck, ITS STUPID AND IMMORAL. Got it?
Just because you have 200/200 it doesnt mean you should fight your enenemy head on. Still i see primate players go ohohohohohoohahahhahaha i will kill my opponent cuz i am maxed!
War is about finding weakness in your opponents armor, understand that your opponents weakness is not where his whole army is, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU FIGHT IT?
SORRY bout my caps but i am getting very angry at you ppl that dont understand some basic principles and then complain that the only option is deatball!
My point is theres options to going head to head with the deathball but u are narrow minded. If you try to harass and flank more and not thinkin how u gonna end the game with ur maxed army u will begin to see more opportunities.
Heres the basic: u NEVER EVER fight ur enemy with equal numbers (200 vs 200)
You manouver around until ur oppononent gets to thin out or make mistake and cant defend a certain area.
When u learn to have real effective apm all sorts of good stuff can happen if you follow this principle.
Please do not complain about deathball until you understand why it happens and how you avoid it.
DEATHBALL IS NOT NEEDED TO WIN GAMES! eAPM and thinking ahead is.
If you havent learned the Art of War i suggest that obtain it immedietly so u can begin the quest of being a better commander. Thats all peace
|
On August 26 2012 23:27 whoopsome wrote:
OK OK OK. Want to give advice for u weaklings.
You should NEVER EVER risk your whole army NO MATTER WHAT!
Why? Think of real life, you will never just send your whole army head to head against another army if there is other options... its like playing with luck, ITS STUPID AND IMMORAL. Got it?
Just because you have 200/200 it doesnt mean you should fight your enenemy head on. Still i see primate players go ohohohohohoohahahhahaha i will kill my opponent cuz i am maxed!
War is about finding weakness in your opponents armor, understand that your opponents weakness is not where his whole army is, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU FIGHT IT?
SORRY bout my caps but i am getting very angry at you ppl that dont understand some basic principles and then complain that the only option is deatball!
My point is theres options to going head to head with the deathball but u are narrow minded. If you try to harass and flank more and not thinkin how u gonna end the game with ur maxed army u will begin to see more opportunities.
Heres the basic: u NEVER EVER fight ur enemy with equal numbers (200 vs 200)
You manouver around until ur oppononent gets to thin out or make mistake and cant defend a certain area.
When u learn to have real effective apm all sorts of good stuff can happen if you follow this principle.
Please do not complain about deathball until you understand why it happens and how you avoid it.
DEATHBALL IS NOT NEEDED TO WIN GAMES! eAPM and thinking ahead is.
If you havent learned the Art of War i suggest that obtain it immedietly so u can begin the quest of being a better commander. Thats all peace
epic troll
|
Aha? How come? Sure my post didnt come as big news to some but others are totally ignorant.
|
It will be challenging for Blizzard to make changes necessary to get people to stop using all their units on 1 hotkey, right now it's just too easy to deathball and any units they make to make the deathball less powerful will inevitably end up in the same hotkey group as the deathball.
Revert to limited unit selection IMO. It would be better for the longevity of this game. I voiced this concern back in 2007, I had no idea that the problem with unlimited selection would be deathballs at the time but it was a valid concern nonetheless. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=53514
Here's a gem from that thread:
On May 27 2007 21:26 KwarK wrote:
Unlimited selection makes things easier for the player and allows them to concentrate on strategy without being limited by arbitrary rules.
And that's why footballers should be allowed to pick the ball up. I mean wtf is going on with this? Moving it along with your feet? Did people not know that the hands are far more flexible and can grip onto the ball unlike feet? Now we know this that rule is simply outdated and prevents better strategic footballers from winning simply because their foot execution isn't great. The game shouldn't be about practicing manipulation of the ball over and over to get an edge. It should be a game of pure skill where things like ball control which tbh only reward massgamers are made simpler.
The game is the game. You achieve a given objective within given parameters. In football it's get the ball in the net using your feet. In starcraft it's get his base on fire using groups of 12 units or less. The rules don't have to be logical. The rules don't have to be what is easiest. The rules are what makes the game challenging and fun.
|
On August 27 2012 00:17 Meta wrote:It will be challenging for Blizzard to make changes necessary to get people to stop using all their units on 1 hotkey, right now it's just too easy to deathball and any units they make to make the deathball less powerful will inevitably end up in the same hotkey group as the deathball. Revert to limited unit selection IMO. It would be better for the longevity of this game. I voiced this concern back in 2007, I had no idea that the problem with unlimited selection would be deathballs at the time but it was a valid concern nonetheless. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=53514Here's a gem from that thread: Show nested quote +On May 27 2007 21:26 KwarK wrote:
Unlimited selection makes things easier for the player and allows them to concentrate on strategy without being limited by arbitrary rules.
And that's why footballers should be allowed to pick the ball up. I mean wtf is going on with this? Moving it along with your feet? Did people not know that the hands are far more flexible and can grip onto the ball unlike feet? Now we know this that rule is simply outdated and prevents better strategic footballers from winning simply because their foot execution isn't great. The game shouldn't be about practicing manipulation of the ball over and over to get an edge. It should be a game of pure skill where things like ball control which tbh only reward massgamers are made simpler.
The game is the game. You achieve a given objective within given parameters. In football it's get the ball in the net using your feet. In starcraft it's get his base on fire using groups of 12 units or less. The rules don't have to be logical. The rules don't have to be what is easiest. The rules are what makes the game challenging and fun.
Theres is no problems with unlimited selection since deathball is not the best way to play starcraft
|
Stories programmers tell about EMS memory are like those that old folks tell about walking uphill to school, barefoot, in the snow, both ways, except that EMS stories are even more horrible, and actually true. from http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1
You know you're getting old when you actually get this joke.
|
I think people in this thread have great ideas. I think it would be really cool for community members to make new units themselves as much as the map editor lets them and try to find ways to break up the deathball themselves. I admit I've lost a lot of my interest in SC2 and I'm afraid that other people have also or will soon. I like SC2 and I love the teamliquid community, so I hope HOTS can help make games more interesting to watch.
I think that part of the problem is that pros don't micro as well as they should. There could be a lot more flanking and strategic positioning. As a zerg player, it kills me every time I see an infestor die due to bad micro. This also happens with sentries, ghosts, high templar. Why aren't pros better at saving these units? They clump them with their army and just run them into the opponent's army.
Also, flanking. I remember after Destiny came back from Korea he was much better at splitting up his army and flanking, at least in the early game with zerglings and roaches. There was still the deathball problem in late game with broodlords and infestors. But at least the early game was fun to watch. I feel like more people could be a lot more strategic and inventive with their play and that would make SC2 more fun to watch.
|
On August 27 2012 01:18 Cowpieguy wrote:
I think people in this thread have great ideas. I think it would be really cool for community members to make new units themselves as much as the map editor lets them and try to find ways to break up the deathball themselves. I admit I've lost a lot of my interest in SC2 and I'm afraid that other people have also or will soon. I like SC2 and I love the teamliquid community, so I hope HOTS can help make games more interesting to watch.
I think that part of the problem is that pros don't micro as well as they should. There could be a lot more flanking and strategic positioning. As a zerg player, it kills me every time I see an infestor die due to bad micro. This also happens with sentries, ghosts, high templar. Why aren't pros better at saving these units? They clump them with their army and just run them into the opponent's army.
Also, flanking. I remember after Destiny came back from Korea he was much better at splitting up his army and flanking, at least in the early game with zerglings and roaches. There was still the deathball problem in late game with broodlords and infestors. But at least the early game was fun to watch. I feel like more people could be a lot more strategic and inventive with their play and that would make SC2 more fun to watch.
Splitting up the army only works when either the enemy is not equipped to handle it or if they split up their army too.
In both cases it is basically saying "I hope this works out well". Typically the flanks are done to attack bases or mineral lines, never other pieces of army. That's because it is standard to keep your army together, it isn't standard to have it split 12,24, or 36. You never WANT to attack a big ball with a smaller ball, that is the entire essence we tell people new to starcraft.
I see what you are saying, but it just isn't the case. It isn't a broken up deathball, it is a counter attack tactic.
|
On August 27 2012 00:17 Meta wrote:It will be challenging for Blizzard to make changes necessary to get people to stop using all their units on 1 hotkey, right now it's just too easy to deathball and any units they make to make the deathball less powerful will inevitably end up in the same hotkey group as the deathball. Revert to limited unit selection IMO. It would be better for the longevity of this game. I voiced this concern back in 2007, I had no idea that the problem with unlimited selection would be deathballs at the time but it was a valid concern nonetheless. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=53514Here's a gem from that thread: Show nested quote +On May 27 2007 21:26 KwarK wrote:
Unlimited selection makes things easier for the player and allows them to concentrate on strategy without being limited by arbitrary rules.
And that's why footballers should be allowed to pick the ball up. I mean wtf is going on with this? Moving it along with your feet? Did people not know that the hands are far more flexible and can grip onto the ball unlike feet? Now we know this that rule is simply outdated and prevents better strategic footballers from winning simply because their foot execution isn't great. The game shouldn't be about practicing manipulation of the ball over and over to get an edge. It should be a game of pure skill where things like ball control which tbh only reward massgamers are made simpler.
The game is the game. You achieve a given objective within given parameters. In football it's get the ball in the net using your feet. In starcraft it's get his base on fire using groups of 12 units or less. The rules don't have to be logical. The rules don't have to be what is easiest. The rules are what makes the game challenging and fun.
Hmm, well at least for me the reason I never got into broodwar was mainly because of the limited unit selection, it just annoyed me so much and I had such a hard time understanding why something like that was there. At least for me, that's what makes sc2 much more fun to play.
The way I think about it, I feel like the deathball syndrome is not that prevalent, and really only applies to pvz and mech tvz. In these cases, the p/t players focus on getting to 200 because they know that a 200/200 army will be stronger than anything zerg can put together besides their own deathball, broodlord infestor. Maybe not as much with mech (with roach drops, run bys, etc), but definitely in pvz you will get two annoying scenarios: P two base all-ins, or it becomes NR20 with zerg turtling hard on infestor spine and not pushing out until 10+ broods, while P furiously chronos the mothership out.
In these cases, the only real fix would be to change the entire race design, thereby changing the match-up dynamic.
|
How would the limited unit selection really help?
The Protoss colossus based deathball is probably the biggest offender, and it has the smallest unit count. Its the strong unit synergy and lack of good aoe that makes it a problem.
|
On August 27 2012 05:54 Monkeyballs25 wrote:
How would the limited unit selection really help?
The Protoss colossus based deathball is probably the biggest offender, and it has the smallest unit count. Its the strong unit synergy and lack of good aoe that makes it a problem.
Not sure, let's find out! Someone go make a map, don't change anything about SC2, just put in limited unit selection of 12 units.
test it, see if it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IMGcj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x7RNX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SuiCY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/345v3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BEuVb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OPbLo.jpg)
