|
On July 02 2012 03:05 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:50 niteReloaded wrote:
The main reason SC1 doesn't have deathballs isn't 12 units per hotkey, it's because you have Reavers, Lurkers and Siege tanks that actually kill shit.
A single reaver kills a dozen marines. At the same time, 4-5 reavers isn't that much more useful than 1-2.
Collosus on the other hand can't 1 shot a group of M&M. However the more you build of them, the more dangerous they are.
It's a fail by Blizzard that's been talked about since beta.
When you nerf the fuck out of everything, and design the units poorly, deathballing is the way to go.
I don't see why they can't realize how the concept of the reaver is superior to the one of the Collosus. And it's easy to replicate. Make units with huge splash heavily dependent on micro managment. Voila! 4-5 reavers with shuttles and awesome player control are freaking scary man. Freaking scary. There should be a mod in which the Colossus was replaced by the Reaver and see how Reaver+Shuttle forces the Protoss to micro his shit. Lots of high ranked Protoss would cry because they can't win anymore at that level. Also, to that mod add spider-mines to the hellion and add the lurker aspect upgrade to the hydra. I bet it would make a better game.
I agree about the nerfing.
BW units were very powerful and "imbalanced" according to Blizzards current standard. Had any of those units been present in SC2 beta it would have been nerfed into oblivion. SC2 started out as an awesome sequel with creative and powerful/diverse units, but then Blizzard decided to do what they never really did in BW, balance it thoroughly. Every cool thing about SC2 was made significantly less cooler. I'm a big believer that balance finds its own way, even if it takes time(as long as there isn't something COMPLETELY broken). As long as you give every race something imbalanced/powerful, then balance will find it's way.
Anyways, my point is that even when those units are not present in a BW battle, the battles don't seem clumped like in SC2, so it's not the units that force players to be spread out all the time. Just moving your army is very different in BW than in SC2. It MUST be the pathfinding. Sure, units like the reaver in SC2 would encourage spread, just like banelings do, but the game would still naturally clump your units outside of situations where you purposely separate them. Not the case in BW
|
The word "deathball" would have never existed if units didnt clump up so much...
|
On July 02 2012 03:23 CrtBalorda wrote:
The word "deathball" would have never existed if units didnt clump up so much...
http://www.deathball.net/
|
On July 02 2012 00:58 BiG wrote:
I dont even think the deatball is a problem anymore. The whole thing was present like 1 year ago, but nowadays there is so much harass/drop involved in all races.
also i dont think those new units will change anything in that regard. yes there might be more harass, but in the end you need a fighting army.
No, not really. For example, in PvT, after the initial drop and harass phases, pretty much all terran drops are negated by HTs and Stalkers in high level games and warp prisms barely do any damage with whats inside the warp prism. In ZvT, Mutas just harass the shit out of terran and there aren't many things that terran can do to try and stop it mid game, although late game the zerg just puts in corruptors and broodlords (with infestors). Late game death ball battles are still a humongous problem in the game
oh yay... 1000th post!
|
On July 02 2012 02:59 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.http:/www.teamliquid.net/forum/smilies.php
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
This is incorrect. In BW, they didn't tend to spread apart; there was an AI "box" that was made whenever you moved your units. Your units would keep the same formation that they had when they were standing still and you selected them (as far as this was possible, considering obstacles/change of direction). This is exactly what SC2 needs. In SC2, if I manually spread units out, then select them in one group and right click to a location, they will immediately clump together to move there, which is terrible and incredibly annoying. Stratos makes a very interesting point. Anyone have thoughts on this?
Well, if you want to test it its the easiest thing in the world. Just go to the Data Editor and change the "Formation Diameter" under Gameplay Data to a larger value.
And I agree, it would probably help, but I haven't tried it yet. Also SC1 units spread out automatically because of the AI, so I'm not sure how much of an impact such a change would have as units in SC2 also automatically clump if they walk down a ramp etc.
|
The way to fix deathball problem is simple: Making early to midgame and midgame small skirmishes happen more often. For that to happen though, the fights should last longer. The units should take longer to kill each other. Now I'm not an expert in BW, but I've been watching it as much as I can for the last year and a half. Lurker from BW is burrowed and can attack while burrowed. This can make it pretty tough for the bio Terran player to attack the Zerg. Yet it is not impossible. With good control and scans, Terran can have a fight. However unless both players screw up big time or overextend themselves, there is always room for retreat (stop/hold lurkers are another story...yet it's just really cool to watch and still the Z player has to bait the T to that)
So if players can retreat for the most of time, they can keep looking for other attack routes. Perhaps a drop, or a double prong attack. Or perhaps waiting for a crucial upgrade/unit that would unlock the route to the assault (Science Vessels/Defilers in BW) That creates tension and expectation for the spectator. You start to think about what the players are going to do. However an attack can almost never lead to certain loss, at least that's from what I can see from the games I've watched. (although I'm sure there must be situations like that, those kind of strategies must have been eliminated from the metagame or should only be possible when a truly skillful knows when and how to choose that strategy)
In Sc2 though, because engagements happen and end so quickly, retreating is really risky for the most of the time. You can lose half your army while retreating because of abilities like fungal growth or FF. So players try to hope to engage in the perfect moment. With the right upgrades, right composition, and in the right battle field. Because of that, players continue to macro and poke and try to see if it's better choice to attack. However there are only two outcomes: Win or lose. Sometimes they pick the right moment. Sometimes they don't and lose their army horribly. Sometimes the players are on equal feeting and there is room for retreat, or it becomes an even trade, although this is quite rare and most of the times this is because one of the players make a big blunder (usually the one who has the advantage in the engagement)
So what is the problem with SC2's system? Why is retreating so hard and battles end so quickly?
1) The units are really efficient at killing each other. This is a result of the improved AI and pathfinding and the damage modifiers like vs. armored/light being really strong in certain cases. If you attack Marauders with Roaches, unless you have more roaches or are better upgraded, you are going to lose no matter what. This type of damage modifiers also exist in BW, but remember our initial point? Retreats are almost always an option.
2) Because of how unit clumping works, splash damage is super effective and most of the times it's a game ender if you get caught in a really bad spot. Ofcourse that's a player's mistake and they should be punished for that, but not quite so severely, because no matter what, noone is perfect and will get caught in a bad position from time to time. Giving players more room to recuperate those mistakes (while not making the game too easy with favoring retreats way too much) could work
3) Most of the units are one dimensional and are good at only one or two situations. Colossus is basically a 1-a, splash damage unit. It can move up or down cliffs, but honestly how many times have you seen that? It's mainly used for its range and damage. Or take Marauders. Ridiculously strong versus armored, almost to the point of making armored opponent units useless without other support units. It's basically the rock against scissors. There is not much you can do to improve that unit through good control. This leads engagements to be determined pretty much solely on the points 1 and 2. A player still has to control better, because remember he can still lose in few seconds. But other than that, you just take these units and just literally attack move. And most of the times this works. Due to this, massing some of the units are really strong and leads to one sided battles.
In my opinion, the right unit of WOL is Stalker. It can shoot air and ground, but it doesn't do ridiculous damage. It's not super strong against neither armored nor other types(though it gets a bonus vs. armored) Its efficiency increases with good control and a very good upgrade, Blink. I think we need more units like that, where they are not super super good in one situation yet mediocre/bad in others, but on average allright and shining with specifically good control or right upgrades.
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
I find scenarios where both players multitasking and control is tested to the limit to be way more rewarding as a spectator, like qwadroble drops while armies are repositioning , the deathball syndrome might look pretty for a couple of seconds, but the skillfull execution is very vague in the deathball fights , most the interesting dynamics arround the fights is how they get into position- 2cents
|
To add another point: Lack of real defender's advantage (nothing new though). If I could stop more with less when having a superior battle position for instance, I am discouraged to just box everything and move with it across the map. A "300" scenario in SC2 is basically unthinkable whereas in BW having a few units which excel at defending is enough to at least stall a push.
The pathing issue adds a great deal to this problem. Basically I believe these two - clumping and no defender's advantage - create a fatal gameplay dynamic which eventually leads to the deathball syndrome.
|
So many people talk about a 'micro-less' deathball. The thing is, so many of the games I watch are determined by the other things like harassment, tech switches. It seems like so much of the skill in winning battles is microing and positioning. To say that it's micro-less is silly. It is when you have such a dominating lead or a dominating unit comp, but well... shouldn't they be? GSL games aren't being decided by micro-less deathballs is all I know. Many games are lost due to one player managing his army in a superior way and it's not by A-moving their army towards their opponents... so much is about forcing an engagement in the correct spot and knowing when to engage/retreat. We are also seeing more and more games where there are many many micro-intensive engagements that are contributing to what kind of units comps and size the 'final' deathball the players are able to achieve which ends up being the final engagement.
|
On July 02 2012 01:11 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:57 enemy2010 wrote:
It think with units that "pull units out of a death ball to thin it out" won't prevent both parties to build up those.
My direct suggestion would be to allow less units to be grouped up in a control group. I don't think of a number as small as in BW (12 i guess, right?), but maybe something like 24, so one page of a control group? no, purposely restricting UI to be unintuitive is a taboo in any designer or UI book. Not only are they frustrating, you are alienating a good portion of the playerbase when you do something like this that modern computer users/gamers aren't used to
Blizzard should just implement a tournament mode and also have a ladder using that and one without where some balance changes/mechanics work differently.
|
How about "staller" type units for each race? They slow down pushes and would best be used defensively.
Infestors fungal growth once denied movement for 8 seconds and force field can slow a push down, too, but as casters they are expensive and only have one spell when freshly built, they aren't good stallers.
The Widow Mine could be one: After your army got crushed you reactor them out and slow the opposing army down: Protoss need to carfully advance their Observers for example (running Immortals or Zealots in first wouldn't help if the autocast of the mines is turned off).
Using the Widow Mine while your own army is intact would only cost you supply, gas, minerals and build time on the factory.
It would need some more tweaking to fully fulfill this role, but I think that it would improve the game.
As for Zerg and Protoss, I don't know right now.
|
Remove unlimited unit selection. Death ball fixed. :D (Don't know if going backwards on UI design is good or bad though)
|
On July 02 2012 04:22 rufflesQueso wrote:
Remove unlimited unit selection. Death ball fixed. :D (Don't know if going backwards on UI design is good or bad though)
That's why they should make a tournament mode so that both options are there
|
On July 02 2012 03:29 Bleak wrote:
The way to fix deathball problem is simple: Making early to midgame and midgame small skirmishes happen more often. For that to happen though, the fights should last longer. The units should take longer to kill each other.
Sorry I took the first 2 lines here, but I think a lot of people will disagree with this. (I myself am not quite out of it yet, I think we should see the different scenario's play out before we make any calls)
AOE units that kill other units fast make it so that clumping gets punished hard. 1 reaver shot will make you think twice about running around with big groups of zerglings, just like banelings do now. From most posts ive seen here, most people agree on the following : 'because our units dont kill fast enough, we need to stack a lot of 'em together, so we CAN kill stuff fast.'
So in light of this : aoe units should kill ALOT, FAST, but should be VERY VULNERABLE, MICROINTENSIVE, EXPENSIVE. (edit : the colossus kills stuff mediocre-ly fast, but is only so-so micro intensive, not THAT vulnerable either, whereas reaver was slow as hell and very vulnerable.)
again, I think we should see it play out first before we can say 'its this or that', but I just saw a big contrast here between you and other posters and thought it would be worth mentioning.
What do you think?
|
I like the changes to Protoss and it should work in PvZ. In ZvX I don't see the changes doing much. As for Terran, I feel like giving them units like the Warhound and Battle Hellion will just make them build Mech deathballs without Siege Tanks. I think giving mines to Warhounds, making them much more mobile and a lot cheaper, and changing the attack in some way would work.
|
On July 02 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote:
They might, if poorly defended, give you a slight economic advantage, but if your deathball loses to the enemy's deathball, you still lose because he walks over your base.
terrible, terrible damage maybe?
|
On July 02 2012 04:31 []Phase[] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 03:29 Bleak wrote:
The way to fix deathball problem is simple: Making early to midgame and midgame small skirmishes happen more often. For that to happen though, the fights should last longer. The units should take longer to kill each other. Sorry I took the first 2 lines here, but I think a lot of people will disagree with this. (I myself am not quite out of it yet, I think we should see the different scenario's play out before we make any calls) AOE units that kill other units fast make it so that clumping gets punished hard. 1 reaver shot will make you think twice about running around with big groups of zerglings, just like banelings do now. From most posts ive seen here, most people agree on the following : 'because our units dont kill fast enough, we need to stack a lot of 'em together, so we CAN kill stuff fast.' So in light of this : aoe units should kill ALOT, FAST, but should be VERY VULNERABLE, MICROINTENSIVE, EXPENSIVE. (edit : the colossus kills stuff mediocre-ly fast, but is only so-so micro intensive, not THAT vulnerable either, whereas reaver was slow as hell and very vulnerable.) again, I think we should see it play out first before we can say 'its this or that', but I just saw a big contrast here between you and other posters and thought it would be worth mentioning. What do you think?
Well the one thing occurs to me is that even if AOE is sufficiently "discouraging" of DB play you would still need a map that allows you to spread out your units. Take a look at Condemned ridge, wouldn't it be difficult for a player to split his army if he encountered a reaver?
![[image loading]](http://sc2.gamingfeeds.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/6/files/HLIC/ec64ca8ec3743e950d0cd715487de2e4.jpg)
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
okay you haven't watched BW have you?
|
If you think this stuff will prevent deathballs, think again.
Bigger more open maps, dynamic unit spacing (EG units get stuck on each other), stronger splash, and better game design will break up the deathball.
As long as current unit spacing paradigm, IE clipping units and hyper-dense grouping, continues, the deathball wars will continue and more people will get bored of SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
