Update: 7/26/2012 Since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It turns out that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II." -Patrick Wyatt, Producer/Lead Programmer of Warcraft 1
So it appears that they added limited unit selection specifically to avoid a "deathball" syndrome.
Original Post
Breaking up the Death Ball
The Deathball. It is a phenomenon that has come to define almost every game of Starcraft 2. Huge armies grouped together that move together until one big battle that determines the game. The problem primarily arose out of changes to the UI, both improved pathing and unlimited unit selection. As we learn more about Heart of the Swarm it becomes clear that the developers are focused on breaking up the death ball. I will give some examples
Widow Mine:Rather than re-introduce the spider mine the devs created a new mine that is best used alone out in the field. This mine takes up supply thus pulling supply from the ball of death. The Widow Mine also does not combo well with the siege tank since if the tank blows up the unit before the mine detonates it is wasted. On top of all this the Widow Mine encourages enemy players to break up their deathballs after the mine latches on a unit inside the deathball.
Building Attacking Nydus Worm: "Because there’s scenarios with Zerg right now where the Mutalisk raiding is glorious, and then they shut it down, and you’re like, “I guess I’m done raiding.” And that kind of – that’s sounds fun, we want to split up the armies, spread everybody out, get everybody doing different stuff and make the deathballs a little smaller" http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/1160-dustin-browder-interview-mlg-anaheim-2012
Tempest:The Tempest takes a different approach to pulling units out of the deathball. Its incredible range means it doesn't have to physically be in the ball to contribute its fire power. This range is described as more "strategic" than "tactical" giving presence to an entire region of the map.
Oracle:Like the Widow Mine the Oracle takes up supply pulling supply away from the Deathball and like the Building Attacking Nydus Worm the Oracle is a raider which creates mini-battles away from the main death ball.
So what do you guys think of Blizzards attempts to break up the death ball? Will it work? Do certain strategies (more raiders, pulling supply, "strategic" range) for breaking the ball up work more than others? What do you think the best solution is?
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?
I think with Zerg, you would have a better argument talking about the vipers and its abilities.
I don't think they necessarily are intended to break up deathballs, the oracle and tempest as reasons to take up supply is a stretch at best.
You also have abilities that suggest more death balls, like hydra speed to keep up with units, swarm host to create a larger "swarm" attack, a giant engulfing attack and the mothership upgrade that can take large groups and port them back.
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.
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.
It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. 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.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
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.
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
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
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 .
No it's not. Not when it ends in 2 messy seconds and also the game 2 seconds later.
I think instead of focusing on units to break up deathballs they should focus on maps. The less minerals/gas per expansion is idea is best IMO. Make it easy to take up FRAGILE bases all over the map, and watch players skirmish with handfuls of units all over the map. Right now the "community" keeps giving blizzard shit for the maps they make, yet only support maps that let you too safely make three bases, and now four that are easily secured from harassment. "Oh noes. Rocks. Veto. Oh noes, it's too hard to take a 4th on antiga, veto" I think the small 4th base on daybreak is more of what we need to see.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
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. Tempests won't be a worthwhile investment unless you're SUPER ahead, because both Terran and Zerg already mass up Vikings/Corruptors respectively.
I've always felt that the primary cause of the "deathball" phenomenon was that fact that the units can overlap (graphically) so much. "Lack of significant AoE" doesn't make that much sense as a reason. Colossus, Tanks, Storm, Fungal, for instance are all area effects, and logically players would benefit from spreading out their units (except maybe against the Colossus, where spreading out the units just lines them up to get roasted...?).
When you compare (as the closest parallel) Brood War, the difference isn't really the number of units in a battle, but how much space the battle takes up. Maxed metal pushing into maxed Protoss is going to be the same size armies no matter which game you're talking about. There was a thorough thread discussing the visual changes of clumping vs. spreading, graphically, somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
The viper will cause the protoss to split up the army as they won't risk their colossus, the swarm host will be detached from the zerg from as their most useful stationary, the widow mine will "desupply" the mmm army as well as the mech army. I have full confidence in Blizzard and Dustin Browder.
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?
Been thinking the same thing since the whole unlimited selection came out. 1 page / Group still has plenty units in them, and you could still control your entire army with only 3 groups. Whether DB would disappear completely, im not too sure, but it'd def. help.
EDIT : I see a lot of suggestions like 'FRB', more haras units, smaller ctrlgrps, etc,... however, only 1 might not fix the DB problem altogether, but if we were to COMBINE all the suggestions, we might get the results we are aiming for.
I'll just leave my opinion there because of something weird that happened not too long ago.
I was a plat terran, facing a good diamond terran ( not trying to boost my ego or anything , but people are obviously going to ask what level of play, so yeah, diamond eu ). I must point out that i have not played many 1v1s in SC2 ( maybe 30 ? I don't know exactly, but so few TvTs ) so we both do classic tank marine builds, 1rax fe into tank rine push with combat shield and two medivacs for me and none of us takes much damage, and gets to expand somewhat safely. We end up kind of splitting the map and my goal at this point is to deny the 6 o'clock while taking the bases on my side of the map. ( My goal is pretty much to starve him ) I end up loosing the game and GGing. After the game i ask him why i lost. The answer ? The execution of the build was okay but i lost almost every engagement due to my army being split. So then i ask him : "How should i do to deny this base ?? " - You can't. I was apparently playing the game wrong.
See most of my experience of mid / late game TvT comes from watching BW games where there's a lot more positioning involved, and siege tanks actually murder marines. I was trying to hold positions with a reasonnable amount of tanks and some marines to buffer and to be used as anti air. He proceeds to telling me that i just can't deny this base, i have to give it to him somehow. The thing he suggested me to do was try to leave a few siege tanks in the middle and mimmick his movements with my ball of marines medivacs and tanks.
I am a nobody in the scene, i am not even GM, so take my opinion for what it's worth but you can't really break up the ball because it's just so eifficient. I just can't hold a position with a limited amount of units, at least not as terran, but i don't see it happening too much with the other races, we do see HTs or infestors being left at bases but you just can't do anything when a maxed out army comes knocking at your door, and it's not about making units that utterly destroy all of the opponent's ball, it's about giving units that, if left somewhere, can trade very cost eifficiently ( picture a storm killing 10 hydras in BW for instance, or a couple of siege tanks +1 bunker behind supply wall on one of those side expos on Fightning spirit ) if left in small numbers.
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 .
huh WTF?! It's indeed the worse thing.. Don't you think it's way better to watch several small fights everywhere around the map with counter attacks, drops, etc?
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?
With smaller control groups, it would be almost the same. It will take a bit more skills, but good people will be able to have like 5+ control groups for their army and do 1a2a3a4a5a at the same point, only to have all their units in deathball once again. The solution has been suggested many times, and it is to naturally make units avoid other units so you actually need many more clicks if you want to keep them in a tight group (not just 1a2a). But then, they would need to completely rebalance the game around that (particularly AoE, it'd need to be stronger).
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
And how does that relate to deathballs? You can get high tier units in a game without pure macro for the first 10 minutes. That is just a function of how the match up has evolved up to this point.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
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 dont liek these approaches: - Tempest will fit very well into a deathball, also Viper. - The mines will be added to secure counter attacking paths when nmoving out the mech deathball. In BW actually units were necessary to lay the mines, which made them a separate squad on the map.
I only see two options, as blizzard will never remove collossus (i never will understand why):
- decrease dps of general purpose units - add friendly fire to splash damage (liek already in tanks)
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. Tempests won't be a worthwhile investment unless you're SUPER ahead, because both Terran and Zerg already mass up Vikings/Corruptors respectively.
why don't we wait until beta comes out before making these kind of statements, especially regarding to units interactions and balance
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.
If you can't see the deathball today, then you need glasses son. It's just as much of a problem today as it was a year ago.
No, I don't think HotS will fix this. It will never be fixed unless Blizzard sucks it up and admits that their pathing engine is the problem and fixes it.
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
No, it's a direct result of the pathing AI. Pathing is what allows splash damage to be so effective and reduces the effectiveness of melee units against a clump of ranged units.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit selections. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
the "deathball" is the worse thing to have ever happened to this game.
the main contributors are colosus, and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
both of these units are the biggest A move units in the game. u do not micro them what so ever unless they are in danger of dying in which case the only "micro" u do is to pull them back behind ur main army....... thats why i find it insanely annoying when a caster compliments a pro player about his "amazing" colo micro or that he microed his colo "well". srsly...
but this game has many problems aside from the mighty ball of death. ever race (witth the exception of terran) has a unit that they HAVE to make because without that unit they just flat out lose the game.
for toss its sentries. you pretty much need sentries in any army comp u make for early and mid game unless ur going pure blink stalkers.
for zerg its infestors. you pretty much need them. without infestors even ur broodlords will fall quickly to simple marine compositions. without infestors ultras are even more useless then they already are. the only case in which you do not need infestors is if your going a muta baneling build, and if ur going muta bane you HAVE to make banelings. if u dont make banelings u just flat out lose, unless you have infestors instead of banes......
the game is just at a very stupid place right now and i hope HoTS fixes alot of whats wrong with the game by introducing a ton of new strats combined with old strats.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
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?
That's my dream, i want less units in group control
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
turtling up and making a ton of orbitals also makes harassing scv lines not nearly as effective as it should because of mules from a ton of orbitals.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
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.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
muta/bling/ling is still very viable and good against marine heavy comp. the reason why it shifted away is two fold
1) Zerg doesn't need to harass, they are the defender race (unlike in bw). Harassing is optional, and they have a better chance of winning by defending against all harass and powerup in economy, and muta is mainly a harass unit 2) T3 is way too good. Why spend gas on mutas that will eventually be shifted out mid game when you can save all your gas for those amazing t3. Lings, queens, and few infestors are perfectly capable of defending any and all aggression
A direct nerf to T3 or make zerg not a defender race would probably forward this game in a better direction. (At the same time give them gas heavy t2 unit)
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is still required.
late game it gets even more micro intensive for both sides. you seriously cant just 1 a brood lorde infestors into terran.
personally i love the deathball, but i think the way the widow mines work out will be absolutly awesome.
but i think it will be broken in lower leagues. setting widow mines all over the map doesnt take much skill, but if you dont have the micro to spot the mine and destroy the affected unit befor ethe mine goes off, your army could be decimated
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.
Yeah actually that would be totally awesome.
However i will say that while spreading out your units could seem incredibly annoying, a lot of people want 12 unit control groups back which would also be incredibly annoying (imo)(especially with zerglings, omg). The spare apm you get for having a control group system that makes sense you could spend on keeping your army spread.
Warpgate is tied into this problem as well. WG basically forces weaker gateway units to where if you don't have sentries/blink, going out into the middle of the map with anything less than a killing force is asking to lose your army and possibly the game.
The death ball can be dismantled with both Z/T lategame compositions. I think the main issue to address is WHY people wait 15-20min. to make the deathball in the first place. Almost feel like it's the problem is too big for my scope of view, but I think its because protoss has no skirmish units aside from blink stalkers. Everything else is too cost inefficient for the damage that it does, unless it's in a game-ending army.
Sure oracle KIND of solves this problem, but the damage it does is nowhere near as severe as multipronged MMM drops, or banshees, or muta play. Not trying to spark balance talk, just saying that protoss/terran HAS to sit on it's ass (unless allin'ing), to get good map and positional control.
Either way, beyond my inexperienced theroycrafting, HotS protoss is really underwhelming me. Like, to the point where I'm not going to buy it unless something between now and then changes drastically.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is required.
i can't tell if you're serious. flanking with lings, targetting marines with banelings and focus firing tanks with mutas all while terran is splitting everything is the same micro as a moving lings, running infestors in to fungal and then burrowing them?
you do not split marines against fungals in real time, it's near impossible because the animation of fungal is instant. most successful splits vs fungals are pre battle spreads.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
And how does that relate to deathballs? You can get high tier units in a game without pure macro for the first 10 minutes. That is just a function of how the match up has evolved up to this point.
Unless Blizzard spaces out units Deathballs will be a problem and always will be, I cant see HOTS improving this at all
The massive firepower packed into a small area encourages players to do it, looking for the perfect killing blow. Its poor to watch for the spectator as you cant see any micro and normally the game is decided in the first battle.
Protoss seems to suffer from it the most, as they cant expand easily due to Zealots being crap early game and Stalkers having garbage DPS\supply. The race is gimped by the Warpgate mechanic which nulifies defenders advantage therefore they cant be altered
Zerg are forced into Infestor to deal with upgraded marines
Terrans have the best micro units but seem to suffering against Zergs recently due to the large maps and Infestor fungal lockdowns. Fungal growth is killing the ZvT match up but how do Blizzard balence it out if it is nerfed and the lockdown is removed?
If the units were spaced out batles would last longer, the players would have more time to micro and show their skill and the spectators would get a better game to watch.
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?
well that would kill zerg... they would have to use like 5 hotkeys for just units (not including infestors, mutas, broodlors...) for army if you are maxed
On July 02 2012 00:58 Torte de Lini wrote: I think with Zerg, you would have a better argument talking about the vipers and its abilities.
I don't think they necessarily are intended to break up deathballs, the oracle and tempest as reasons to take up supply is a stretch at best.
You also have abilities that suggest more death balls, like hydra speed to keep up with units, swarm host to create a larger "swarm" attack, a giant engulfing attack and the mothership upgrade that can take large groups and port them back.
No way in hell is it going to create a swarm affect from what we've seen of it so far. You could make new zerglings faster than those things attack.
Hell on Shattered you could make new zerglings and (with creep spread) almost get them to your opponents natural between those things attacks.
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?
well that would kill zerg... they would have to use like 5 hotkeys for just units (not including infestors, mutas, broodlors...) for army if you are maxed
that would make zerg easily the hardest race imo
While I think the suggestion is kind of silly. I don't agree that it would become the hardest race. It would be like BW where you'd only hotkey a portion of ur army while just boxing and a-clicking the rest real fast.
On July 02 2012 00:58 Torte de Lini wrote: I think with Zerg, you would have a better argument talking about the vipers and its abilities.
I don't think they necessarily are intended to break up deathballs, the oracle and tempest as reasons to take up supply is a stretch at best.
You also have abilities that suggest more death balls, like hydra speed to keep up with units, swarm host to create a larger "swarm" attack, a giant engulfing attack and the mothership upgrade that can take large groups and port them back.
No way in hell is it going to create a swarm affect from what we've seen of it so far. You could make new zerglings faster than those things attack.
Hell on Shattered you could make new zerglings and (with creep spread) almost get them to your opponents natural between those things attacks.
Yeah, the swarm host is the crappy stepbrother of the lurker. It doesn't seem to have much utility in its current form as of yet. It's a huge unit, clunky, slow ROF, and the dps is meh.
I don't understand why people want to artificially make a game harder as opposed to rewarding plays that are more difficult to pull off. Going back to a limited selection system would be a step backwards.
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote: and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously).
Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB.
This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways.
I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball
EDIT: limiting unit selection seems a step backwards to many, but why? if you make a limitation of 1 page, you can still control maxed armies with relative ease, and it'll improve the spectator and player experience by a lot. It won't feel as 'clunky' as broodwar, but it'll still somewhat fight the deathball disease.
Well one thing I don't think anyone has mentioned directly yet is that collossi can walk on top of their own units. This makes the protoss deathball a ton more efficient in terms of damage per area. If collossi had to deal with unit collision like every other unit in the game then I think this would limit the protoss deathball. In fact, making unit collision overall create more space between units would certainly help, as other people have said.
But I think the main problem is indeed that it is hard (especially as terran) to hold off a lot of aggression with relatively few units. You have to make your own deathball, but if you split up and attack, their deathball kills you. As has been said, siege tanks, fungal and storm need to be made a lot better to discourage deathballs.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is required.
i can't tell if you're serious. flanking with lings, targetting marines with banelings and focus firing tanks with mutas all while terran is splitting everything is the same micro as a moving lings, running infestors in to fungal and then burrowing them?
you do not split marines against fungals in real time, it's near impossible because the animation of fungal is instant. most successful splits vs fungals are pre battle spreads.
your not suppose to split marines in real time..... if you know they are making infestors you split them AHEAD of time, especially while setting up siege tank positions.
also the micro techniques is different for a muta bling comp and a infestor ling comp. if a terran is set up and split his marines you cant just atk into that.
i dont know why you think that fungaling everything terran has while trying to not lose all of ur units in a bad engage in the process is easy.if terran starts to target fire infestors with his siege tanks then you are in a bad spot as zerg. if a ghosts gets a emp off on the infestors then you are in a bad spot as zerg.
you cant just run in and fungal everything and A move lings unless you are playing a very bad terran that engages on creep without clearing it every single game.
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote: and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously).
Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB.
This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways.
I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball
The synergy between the broodlord and the infestor/corruptor makes the deathball. It's not laziness of control groups lol. Even if you could only hotkey 4 units in a control group you would still want to have a flock of broodlords with infestor/corruptor support just because how powerful it was. Guardians weren't a deathball because there were very easy and viable solutions on dealing with them. It actually has nothing to do with how you have your hotkey setup.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is required.
i can't tell if you're serious. flanking with lings, targetting marines with banelings and focus firing tanks with mutas all while terran is splitting everything is the same micro as a moving lings, running infestors in to fungal and then burrowing them?
you do not split marines against fungals in real time, it's near impossible because the animation of fungal is instant. most successful splits vs fungals are pre battle spreads.
your not suppose to split marines in real time..... if you know they are making infestors you split them AHEAD of time, especially while setting up siege tank positions.
also the micro techniques is different for a muta bling comp and a infestor ling comp. if a terran is set up and split his marines you cant just atk into that.
i dont know why you think that fungaling everything terran has while trying to not lose all of ur units in a bad engage in the process is easy.if terran starts to target fire infestors with his siege tanks then you are in a bad spot as zerg. if a ghosts gets a emp off on the infestors then you are in a bad spot as zerg.
you cant just run in and fungal everything and A move lings unless you are playing a very bad terran that engages on creep without clearing it every single game.
that's all i had to read. That's the problem right there. The exciting things about sc1 and sc2 is the micro DURING the battles, not before.
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote: and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously).
Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB.
This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways.
I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball
EDIT: limiting unit selection seems a step backwards to many, but why? if you make a limitation of 1 page, you can still control maxed armies with relative ease, and it'll improve the spectator and player experience by a lot. It won't feel as 'clunky' as broodwar, but it'll still somewhat fight the deathball disease.
idk if you have ever played a game where a zerg has made 20+ broodlords and some infestors, but that is called the zerg deathball. toss cant engage that many broods and infestors unless u can get vortex off and archon toilet the broods. if broodlords had the same attack as guardians from BW they wouldnt be nearly as effective.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is required.
i can't tell if you're serious. flanking with lings, targetting marines with banelings and focus firing tanks with mutas all while terran is splitting everything is the same micro as a moving lings, running infestors in to fungal and then burrowing them?
you do not split marines against fungals in real time, it's near impossible because the animation of fungal is instant. most successful splits vs fungals are pre battle spreads.
true, but like people keep saying, if you fuck up just once and lose 6 infestors, that can lose you the game, especially ibn the mid game.
regardless, TvZ in general is a volatile match up for both sides. the grass is always greener
OP, you forgot that Swarm Host and Viper are also designed to break the deathball.
Swarm Host is a siege unit that may be used to do some area controls.
Viper's abduct spell is to pull something out of the deathball.
Viper's blinding cloud spell forces you opponents to split their ranged units otherwise they can't fire if they clump up as a deathball.
However, battlehellion and warhound are introduced to be a "A-Move Friendly" units (according to David Kim). So these two units will increase the deathball phenomenon in Terran.
-------------------------------------------
Whether these units will work as designers intended is another question entirely.
I think there are some inherent problems to the unit design, and they can do a better job than what we have seen from Blizzard. The following is just my thought:
1. Even if battlehellion is a deathball unit, it's a necessary addition to Terran mech so I would say it's a good addition.
2. Warhound is too similar to the role of Thor as a ground mech unit. It should be changed into some other roles that can be used outside the deathball.
3. Viper's abduct spell is not a good one since it reduces your opponent's incentive to position his army strategically. Knowing that the key units will be pull to death anyway, your opponent will simply don't position his army at all but go deathball.
4. Viper's blinding cloud spell is too similar to fungal growth. One is to make enemy can't move in AOE; the other is to make enemy can't shoot in AOE. The combination of fungal growth and blinding cloud is almost a death penalty to Terran bio. Anticipating Terran will never go bio against Zerg in HOTS.
5. Viper's spells should be changed into something that oriented toward area control. Blizzard should utilize the nature of creep. For example, Viper is now a "creep manipulation unit". It has two spells. One is to change the creep inside a radius of 7 into "slowing creep". Enemy ground units' movement speed inside the slowing creep reduced 50%. The other spell is to change the creep inside a radius of 5 into "fire creep". Enemy ground units inside the fire creep will take 1 damage (ignore armor) per second.
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
the deathball is a direct result of unlimited unit selection. it allows players to be lazy. it allows lazily designed units (read: colossus, tempest) to be overly effective. you dont see harassment groups in sc2 because static defense like a PF is so strong. you need a bigger and bigger ball to take it down; the unit ball is intrinsically more powerful the bigger it gets, so in the end there's no incentive for players to break up the deathball.
deathball is a result of units interaction, not unlimited unit interaction. There just need to be greater reward for mult-tasking then pros will head toward that direction.
TvZ and TvT are both good example, until recently. Having units moving so fast such as lings, units synergy like protoss death balls and no option for heavy AoE type dmg is why sc2 shifts toward deathballs. But even then, as player gets better those problem shifts away slightly
i agree. i absolutely hate what tvz has become (ling infestor into broodlords). Watching marine tank vs ling bling muta back in the day was the best thing I have seen in this game to this date. The amount of micro and control required to fight that comp was incredible.
the main problem with mutas bling is that it was a very fragile comp. terrans have learned to deal with it in a very simple way. get 3 atk and 3 armor on marines and split.
im not gonna get into whether it was easier to execute for terran or zerg, don't like getting into that bullshit. but the fact that it required lots of micro from both ends was what made it interesting. ling infestor is such a boring comp to watch. press f and a.
in terms of micro ling infestor requires just as much as muta bling. you may think its easy to just press the F key, but if u fuck up and lose all of ur infestors to siege tanks ur fucked. doing that only works on terrans that like to clump up all there units anyway. splitting marines against fungals just like what you do against banes is required.
i can't tell if you're serious. flanking with lings, targetting marines with banelings and focus firing tanks with mutas all while terran is splitting everything is the same micro as a moving lings, running infestors in to fungal and then burrowing them?
you do not split marines against fungals in real time, it's near impossible because the animation of fungal is instant. most successful splits vs fungals are pre battle spreads.
your not suppose to split marines in real time..... if you know they are making infestors you split them AHEAD of time, especially while setting up siege tank positions.
also the micro techniques is different for a muta bling comp and a infestor ling comp. if a terran is set up and split his marines you cant just atk into that.
i dont know why you think that fungaling everything terran has while trying to not lose all of ur units in a bad engage in the process is easy.if terran starts to target fire infestors with his siege tanks then you are in a bad spot as zerg. if a ghosts gets a emp off on the infestors then you are in a bad spot as zerg.
you cant just run in and fungal everything and A move lings unless you are playing a very bad terran that engages on creep without clearing it every single game.
that's all i had to read. That's the problem right there. The exciting things about sc1 and sc2 is the micro DURING the battles, not before.
it being exciting to watch or not is purely opinion and debateable. some people LOVE to watch huge clump of army vs huge clump of army battle in a huge all out war and others like the more strategic side of things.
it doesnt matter if you hate it or love it, its apart of the game and does require micro to pull off vs equally skilled opponents.
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initials of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
""y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go""
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote: and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously).
Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB.
This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways.
I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball
The synergy between the broodlord and the infestor/corruptor makes the deathball. It's not laziness of control groups lol. Even if you could only hotkey 4 units in a control group you would still want to have a flock of broodlords with infestor/corruptor support just because how powerful it was. Guardians weren't a deathball because there were very easy and viable solutions on dealing with them. It actually has nothing to do with how you have your hotkey setup.
exactly, it barely has anything to do with broodLINGS anymore, which was my response to the post.
broodlord infestor corruptor is also not the only deathball, so it's not because the limited selection rule does not really apply on this deathball, that it cant apply on a MMM or protoss deathball. Hotkey setup is also not the same thing as limited unit selection. Yeah it has nothing to do with hotkey setup... because hotkey setup means something entirely different.
EDIT : deathballs with lots of high-supply units in them, such as broodlords, wont get fixed by limited unit selection as much because you simply have less units. But again, this does not mean it wont work for stalkers / marauders / zlots / marines, etc.
There are already units that deal with deathballs - ghost, templars, infestors. But people complained when their deathballs got wrecked so they got nerfed. So we get more deathballs and people complain again. And around and around we go. lol.
Fast forward to the current; peoples' skills have improved and now spread their troops more often. I always preferred they buff aoe casters to force the opponent to spread. The community doesn't seem to know what it wants on this issue.
In TvT and TvZ you can spread your units way more than in TvP. Why ? Because it's hard for the T/Z player to attack into defensive position with siege tanks.
In TvT battles are more about who has the better positioning than who has more units. In TvZ battles are usually decided by fungals, banelinghits, siege tank focus fire, splits etc. In contrary in TvP you absolutely need to keep your army together because battles are way more about brute force than in other match ups. You can win the battle in TvZ/T even if you have 3+ medivacs out on the map. In TvP it doesn't work.
Maybe in hots I can use widow mines to give myself bigger defenders advantage than in wol so I can spread out my units more. They could split deathballs by making it harder to attack into defended location by buffing infestors, tanks, ht , etc.
Or just make units require more space so more off your army would be useless in the fight.
On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote: Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
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
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
...in a deathball
well ya, mass thor is a deathball
well, you can mass thors but not have them in 1 ball. I mean you can mass ling aswell but put them in different small groups in different places. Having thors in small groups wont do you much good.
Honestly, they just need to give every race decent splash damage type units that forces splitting.
With the introduction of a thing like the swarm host it doesn't really influence splitting as much as it should, and as a matter of fact influences clumping up to take out the locusts as fast as possible. A lurker on the other hand would influence splitting much like hellions do today.
IMHO blizzard should think more about making more widow mine like units.
but this game has many problems aside from the mighty ball of death. ever race (witth the exception of terran) has a unit that they HAVE to make because without that unit they just flat out lose the game.
We need to listen to this man. Probes and Drones are the real issues plaguing SC2. We should remove them both and find a replacement. Mules are fine they can stay.
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!
I think one reason for the deathball is unit stacking, both as in clumping them more together than in BW but also units like the collossus that can practically be placed inside/above other units.
Also, at the same time, the higher unit density cannot be adequately punished by AoE since it's a lot weaker than in BW. Tanks are a joke when compared to their BW counterpart, collossus is no reaver and theres no mines (yet). Storm was also stronger in BW than it is now. This results in a lot of the units being quite resilient against AoE.
I think apart from marine-centered terrans nobody is really that scared of AoE that they bother splitting their units up. A protoss deathball is so resilient it takes like a two dozen banelings to take it down, so why bother splitting up ? I have seen a clumped up corruptor ball survive a double seeker missile ... AoE is just not strong enough or units have too much hp - otherwise people WOULD split their units up more.
Another part is mobility. Things like creep spread, blink and fast siege units like the collossus makes the deathball quite mobile, so it's not really that punishable by multi-pronged attacks either.
It will take addressing the above concerns to break up the death ball mentality. Increase AoE damage and decrease mobility (especially of high-tier units). If the deathball cannot conveniently defend all paths of attack by insane mobilty, the player might consider splitting up a bit.
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?
deathballs are absolutely terrible and are directly linked with unit clumping, which happens even in lower unit numbers. Taking away some supply here and there isn't going to fix it, it's broken. It's just going to make the deathballs a bit smaller, but equally terrible to watch.
Something needs to change with the pathfinding to fix the clumping. Even if you try having your army in multiple control groups, the clumping is still bad, so it must be the pathfinding. BW might have "worse" pathfinding, but imo it's much better. It's better to watch and feels more natural. Something needs to be done. You can look at almost any BW fight and see how units somehow manage to not clump so much.
On top of that, battles in SC2 have too many units in them too fast. There was a thread that had a lot of attention about lowering the rate of income by removing mineral patches and a gas. This was to match BW in that making a large amount of units took more time and decisions took more investments. New timings would come with such a change and so would smaller battles, at least early and mid game, and with smaller unit numbers micro is much more significant. On top of that, this is just a map change so it can easily happen.
I think those are the two main things that SC2 needs to become much more exciting to watch as well as drawing a thicker line between good and great players.
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.
On July 02 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. 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.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
^This is exactly what I've been saying for the past 6months.
the reason why the deathball wasn't as effective was because there were tons of imba units at all points of the game that could stop any amount of troops
for example, in tvz: mutas would destroy bases if you didn't keep marines at home then the mm ball would get big and zerg needed to get lurkers, which could stop any kind of marine aggression when paired with ramps then terran gets dropships and tanks and the zerg has to stall until defilers then defilers come out and dominate any engagement where they're used effectively then the rest of the game turns into keeping your attention where it needs to be so you win important engagements and keep your army in important spots
the point is for individual units by themselves to get buffed, not nerfed, so a ball isn't needed to win engagements
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.
Giving spider mines to the hellion is a terrible idea. The only reason this even worked at all in brood war was because vultures didn't have splash damage and you could only build one at a time, and because overlords could detect.
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
Not sure if you meant to quote me or the guy I quoted but yea this kind of thing would help too. Especially mixed with limited unit selection or something else to make the game have harder mechanics
On July 02 2012 04:58 0neder wrote: 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.
Bigger maps is the absolute last thing we need right now.
The problem with SC2 right now as an e-sport is that there's nothing goin on in the first 15 mins in the bigger maps.
For all the flaws SC2 had when it was released, I'm a strong believer that it was actually more entertaining, yes the balance was atrocious but there was more action going on, more stuff to watch. Now it's a borefest until the 15 min mark.
What SC2 needs is: much more action in the first minutes without ending the game, and put an end to the whole "flip coin" build order. Waiting 15 min for the game to pick up when it was already determined in the first 5 when a player went blindly with a better build order is just terrible.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
That is because of the map pool. If there was a map that had a wide open natural that was difficult to Forge fast expand on, and yet had no easy to take third for Zerg (and didn't have an easy to take 3rd for Toss like Shattered Temple) we would actually see some action in the first few minutes.
Instead we get maps with easy to take bases and no action.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
As already mentioned before, just change the "Formation Diameter" in the Gameplay Data into a larger value and your units will stay in the formation they are in when move commanded (can be changed for every map in the editor).
But I'm pretty sure Blizzard will never put this in, because of the same old reason, it makes the control of different units with different speeds much less intuitive. If you have a hellion and some marines in the same control group, the hellion will not move to the spot you command it to, it will move to some relative point between the one you commanded it to and the distance between the hellion and the marines added to that point (if the marines and hellions aren't clumped up in the first place).
I like how Brood War was actually war-like, for example fighting on multiple fronts and how everything doesn't die within 5 secs also in Brood War comebacks were more easy
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
By far a great example of why unit spacing is needed because its far more interesting to see armies spread out then clumped out in a ball style. They would also have to fix the maps too so that they don't have a ton of different choke points because if you see most of the maps that are being used on ICCUP and Fish server they have a lot of open space which gives units the ability to move around in a spread out way making them look far bigger and not like a tiny clumped up ball moving around the map.
This game is also far faster then Brood War and gives the player very little time to react which is really bad. I also find units do way to much damage too so retreating is never an option at some battles which retstricts the playstyles more. I find the economy spirals out of control very easily and its mostly the reason people in the lower leagues can't spend every mineral they get in the game and get called bad well its possibly because the game is moving to fast for them to keep up. The lack of defender's advantage also really hurts this game too and should be added. Limiting unit selection to something 24-30 units would be probably make people spread out there armies more and probably try little battles against different area's on the map.
I just want this game to be really good and last for years after the final game expansion comes out.
There are a whole lot of core mechanics in the game that make deathballs preferable. Putting in a bunch of gimmicky units will not change anything, they'd need to redo a lot of very basic stuff (mostly for P and Z), which they're obviously not going to do.
And I doubt altering unit movement and formations would change all that much. To prevent deathballs, the game needs incentive to split one's army into smaller chunks, of which there's currently not much. Similarly, limited control groups wouldn't change a thing, you'd just have your deathball on three hotkeys instead of one.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
That is because of the map pool. If there was a map that had a wide open natural that was difficult to Forge fast expand on, and yet had no easy to take third for Zerg (and didn't have an easy to take 3rd for Toss like Shattered Temple) we would actually see some action in the first few minutes.
Instead we get maps with easy to take bases and no action.
You'd see a ton of all-ins. What you're describing is essentially Crossfire, a horrible PvZ map. There's a limit to what you can blame on maps, and this particular issue is all Browder and co.
I don't see how these new unit break the deathball play. To me a non-deathball game is a game where you have to divide your army in 2-3-4-5 small army. Tempest , Oracle , widow mines don't divide your army , it's just harrass units to make your opponent weaker and kill him later with your BIG army that will crush him in 2 seconds ! Hots will be exactly the same as WoL : harass the opponent to make your late game deathball stronger. It just adds more useless units.
On July 02 2012 04:58 0neder wrote: 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.
Bigger maps is the absolute last thing we need right now. + Show Spoiler +
The problem with SC2 right now as an e-sport is that there's nothing goin on in the first 15 mins in the bigger maps.
For all the flaws SC2 had when it was released, I'm a strong believer that it was actually more entertaining, yes the balance was atrocious but there was more action going on, more stuff to watch. Now it's a borefest until the 15 min mark.
What SC2 needs is: much more action in the first minutes without ending the game, and put an end to the whole "flip coin" build order. Waiting 15 min for the game to pick up when it was already determined in the first 5 when a player went blindly with a better build order is just terrible.
I think the term people are actually talking about is "more open" maps. They don't necessarily need to be bigger.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
Oneder that is a great thread and I think when SC2 was in its alpha stages things like that would have been the correct answer. However, currently SC2 needs a different solution. I see the present situation as very similar to the MBS and automining problem that we faced when SC2 was young. We solved that with macro mechanics. It seems to me that a similar innovative solution is required here.
Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
Pulling supply? If you make ten Oracles, Vipers or thirty Widow Mines maybe. Undeniable fact is that the Death Ball is still going to be prevalent in macro games, there are just going to be more options for players when not going for a straight up fight.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
On July 02 2012 05:22 Toadvine wrote: There are a whole lot of core mechanics in the game that make deathballs preferable. Putting in a bunch of gimmicky units will not change anything, they'd need to redo a lot of very basic stuff (mostly for P and Z), which they're obviously not going to do.
And I doubt altering unit movement and formations would change all that much. To prevent deathballs, the game needs incentive to split one's army into smaller chunks, of which there's currently not much. Similarly, limited control groups wouldn't change a thing, you'd just have your deathball on three hotkeys instead of one.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
That is because of the map pool. If there was a map that had a wide open natural that was difficult to Forge fast expand on, and yet had no easy to take third for Zerg (and didn't have an easy to take 3rd for Toss like Shattered Temple) we would actually see some action in the first few minutes.
Instead we get maps with easy to take bases and no action.
You'd see a ton of all-ins. What you're describing is essentially Crossfire, a horrible PvZ map. There's a limit to what you can blame on maps, and this particular issue is all Browder and co.
Exactly. For some reason everyone needs to think new units will fix everything, when its not units that cause the issue.Its the new improvements in pathing that makes controlling a larger armier easier. Blizzard tried to innovate in War 3 with upkeep so that it encouraged players to keep armies small and not turtle into a big deathball push but it didn't turn out too good (maybe strong heroes also had an affect there). So for fear of alienating SC:BW fans they just gave up on this issue instead of doing something about it they took the lazy way out and added excellent pathing with a few new units. It is then no surprise how things turned out. Unless Blizzard actually find out a way to penalize controlling of large armies, we'll still see deathballs. Also as long as we see clumped up armies, AOE will dominate which means all AOE spells will be watered down which means lesser chance for a higher level unit to handle much larger armies without significant support.For example I'm betting that widow mines will be nerfed in the Beta to such an extent that they will be like ravens HSM... Same will happen with the new darkswarm since you probably can fit an entire 200food army in that space.
Please dont shoot me. Just feel blizzard needs some credit.
So it has been said, by the developers, that the new expansion is hoping to get rid of the deathball problem. It has also been said, by roughly everybody on here, that the developers are going about this wrong. I see the arguments of the community, but I have to side with the developers thus far.
So far I have not seen people argue things from all points of view, just a few select ones that get repeated about 20 times in 6 page threads and are very narrow.
Maybe some other points of view:
Zerg changes Viper- Yes it does goes great with the zerg deathball. But its abilities are made to break up opposing deathballs. Facing the viper, you get penalized the most for keeping your units together, making it a better idea to spread your army out to help negate the effects of blinding clouds and abducts.
Swarm Host- My biggest argument with this one I am not 100% sure about. What is the collision size of the locust? And do they block pathing like broodlings? Both of these would make them fairly horrible to put with your army, as having constant trash spawning on your side of the battle and pushing to get in range would just screw things up.
Ultralisks- Again the enemy has to keep their army spread apart, or else they will get burrow charged.
Protoss changes Oracle- Once again designed to split up the enemy. If you dont properly defend your base, you cant use it. Better leave some units there or send a squad!
Tempest- This unit I can understand other peoples arguments. I think the idea might be more of area control. Anybody realize that their attack range is that of a watch tower? Although I think the idea of using it to attack from interesting angles will turn more into using it to force them to attack your death ball. So ya..... iffy about this.
Easier Recall- Only affects a small group of units. So the protoss can send out a hit force, target something, and bring them back. But considering the size of the army, if it finds any large armies it will probably die. So this forces you to spread out to cover all points of entry, instead of having them sneak around your ball.
Terran Changes First I am guessing most of the terran changes are to promote factory play instead of bio or biomech. BattleHellions- Completely a deathball supporter. Cant argue that. Just helps with mech focus. (Which will mean less bio, which will mean less of those storms that get complained about)
Widow Mine- So if I clump my units into a death ball and get hit by these, I might lose a lot. Very anti deathball. Although I do think the ten seconds is pretty high. I do see the need of a timer. Instead of exploding on collision, like a spider mine, its meant to get farther into a ball and do more damage than the spider mine, so to balance this damage there needs to be a chance to negate it.
Other general arguments- Collosus is not a hard to counter unit. You make anything that flys, which is all at the same tech level. Stop saying that its hard to counter. Low-micro, yes. Hard to counter, no.
This I have heard so many times. People feel that blizzard is at a low with creativity, but feel that they need to bring old units. How is this an answer to low creativity? Old units just so happen to not be new ideas. Lurkers are not new, they are old.
Ultimately I might agree that these change might not turn the game into a map wide struggle filled with micro battle, but I do think it will at least spread the battles apart, making them cover a larger area. Larger area means more stuff happening (rather than all on one screen. More stuff means more micro. Makes us happier, right?
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
It will probably be a mess due to the awful pathing in BW, but try to imagine BW with great pathing and unlimited unit selection....
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
It will probably be a mess due to the awful pathing in BW, but try to imagine BW with great pathing and unlimited unit selection....
Then you have deathballs. The issue is the spacing. There is none. You can fit 40 marines in a small tiny ass area where in broodwar you could only maybe fit 10. This leads to a giant increase in dps (for all races, just using marines as an example) and shit ends up dying way too fast. Space things out and now you have longer lasting fights, aoe that doesn't completely annihilate everything in 2 seconds. More micro. More multitasking (you'll end up using multiple smaller groups instead of trying to deathball because it's more effects, I.E. BW.). Just better all around.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
As already mentioned before, just change the "Formation Diameter" in the Gameplay Data into a larger value and your units will stay in the formation they are in when move commanded (can be changed for every map in the editor).
But I'm pretty sure Blizzard will never put this in, because of the same old reason, it makes the control of different units with different speeds much less intuitive. If you have a hellion and some marines in the same control group, the hellion will not move to the spot you command it to, it will move to some relative point between the one you commanded it to and the distance between the hellion and the marines added to that point (if the marines and hellions aren't clumped up in the first place).
Woah woah woah. There is a a "Formation Diameter" value in there? Is there any example of people tweaking it? I think it would be very interesting to see some maps with the tweaked value just for experimenting, kinda like how people played around with FRB.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
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 .
Because watching 2 players taking 3~5 bases without any aggression is boring then all is decided in only 1 fight (boring too and no come back possible), if you are a spectator you want to shoot yourself...
They got the tempest all wrong. It isn't strong enough by itself to ever be left alone - especially since it costs so much, so you will need to put it with your army so if anyone comes close it is protected.
Once in the death ball, it can be used to force engagements in favorable areas because opposing players will get ransacked for free otherwise.
TL:DR: Tempest makes the death ball problem worse.
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 .
What...? I'd rather watch 20 minutes of action like in a Warcraft III game than 19 minute of army building and then 1 minute action.
Edit: Pretty sure noone will build the tempest if it stays like it is.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
. But see if you have all of your units in 1 control in BW, you will simply get Stormed, Plagued to death and etc. Those spells are much stronger in BW than SC2. I think pros will keep separating units to different hotkeys in BW to prevent such from occurring.
I think they should reduce the amount of resources in each base because right now it seems like you can stay on 2 base forever which really hurts the game because players just turtle and wait till they have a big army and then move out.
I can see toss going Archon/Zealot/Stalker/Colossi (current Deathball) and adding 2 or 3 Tempests in to FORCE an engagement which takes place where Toss wants to. Dont want to engage me? Ok... every few seconds a Broodlord/Infestor/Viper/Swarmhost drops death until you grab your stuff and attack me. Oh... and my oracle cloakes my deathball when disturbing mining becomes irrelevant. How are these 2 units supposed to "not add to the deathball"?
Same for Zerg. If you want to make use of Abcuct, you have to have units nearby to kill the abducted stuff quickly. If you want to keep your swarm hosts, guess what... you have to have units sitting on them und guarding them, like you guard your broodlords now. Zerg Deathball could most likely stay Infestor/Broodlord/Corruptor (maybe a few hosts mixed in) as hydra even with speed is not viable and the vipers abduct is hardly needed in endgame scenarios. Giving speed to the hydra changes nothing. Its still squishy and still gets roflstoped by any kind of area damage.
As for Terran you will add the warhound to your mechball (vP) so another unit that makes a great addition to an huge pile of units. Maybe you could split of the widow mine to zone some vital areas but why should you? Most ppl will try to guard their huge metal ball with mines burrowed in front of Siegetanks...
I really cant imagine where these units are no addition to the deathballs.
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?
well that would kill zerg... they would have to use like 5 hotkeys for just units (not including infestors, mutas, broodlors...) for army if you are maxed
that would make zerg easily the hardest race imo
Zergs deal with it fine in BW. I was very well accustomed to playing with 5-7 hotkeys for units and I was a C player at best.
On July 02 2012 05:22 Toadvine wrote: There are a whole lot of core mechanics in the game that make deathballs preferable. Putting in a bunch of gimmicky units will not change anything, they'd need to redo a lot of very basic stuff (mostly for P and Z), which they're obviously not going to do.
And I doubt altering unit movement and formations would change all that much. To prevent deathballs, the game needs incentive to split one's army into smaller chunks, of which there's currently not much. Similarly, limited control groups wouldn't change a thing, you'd just have your deathball on three hotkeys instead of one.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
That is because of the map pool. If there was a map that had a wide open natural that was difficult to Forge fast expand on, and yet had no easy to take third for Zerg (and didn't have an easy to take 3rd for Toss like Shattered Temple) we would actually see some action in the first few minutes.
Instead we get maps with easy to take bases and no action.
You'd see a ton of all-ins. What you're describing is essentially Crossfire, a horrible PvZ map. There's a limit to what you can blame on maps, and this particular issue is all Browder and co.
I didn't say you wouldn't see all-ins, of course you would. But isn't that what PvZ has devolved into now? Protoss take 2 bases, difficult to take 3rd, Zerg takes 3, Protoss all-ins from now.
On July 02 2012 06:02 Charon1979 wrote: These new units will add to the deathball...
I can see toss going Archon/Zealot/Stalker/Colossi (current Deathball) and adding 2 or 3 Tempests in to FORCE an engagement which takes place where Toss wants to. Dont want to engage me? Ok... every few seconds a Broodlord/Infestor/Viper/Swarmhost drops death until you grab your stuff and attack me. Oh... and my oracle cloakes my deathball when disturbing mining becomes irrelevant. How are these 2 units supposed to "not add to the deathball"?
A valid point. Cloak on the oracle does seem like it would contribute to deathball play.
Same for Zerg. If you want to make use of Abcuct, you have to have units nearby to kill the abducted stuff quickly. If you want to keep your swarm hosts, guess what... you have to have units sitting on them und guarding them, like you guard your broodlords now. Zerg Deathball could most likely stay Infestor/Broodlord/Corruptor (maybe a few hosts mixed in) as hydra even with speed is not viable and the vipers abduct is hardly needed in endgame scenarios. Giving speed to the hydra changes nothing. Its still squishy and still gets roflstoped by any kind of area damage.
As for Terran you will add the warhound to your mechball (vP) so another unit that makes a great addition to an huge pile of units. Maybe you could split of the widow mine to zone some vital areas but why should you? Most ppl will try to guard their huge metal ball with mines burrowed in front of Siegetanks...
I really cant imagine where these units are no addition to the deathballs.
Putting widow mines in front of tanks would be a waste of mines because if the siege tanks kill a "mined" unit before the mine goes off that mine is wasted.
On July 02 2012 05:49 Alabast wrote: Please dont shoot me. Just feel blizzard needs some credit.
So it has been said, by the developers, that the new expansion is hoping to get rid of the deathball problem. It has also been said, by roughly everybody on here, that the developers are going about this wrong. I see the arguments of the community, but I have to side with the developers thus far.
So far I have not seen people argue things from all points of view, just a few select ones that get repeated about 20 times in 6 page threads and are very narrow.
Maybe some other points of view:
Zerg changes Viper- Yes it does goes great with the zerg deathball. But its abilities are made to break up opposing deathballs. Facing the viper, you get penalized the most for keeping your units together, making it a better idea to spread your army out to help negate the effects of blinding clouds and abducts.
Swarm Host- My biggest argument with this one I am not 100% sure about. What is the collision size of the locust? And do they block pathing like broodlings? Both of these would make them fairly horrible to put with your army, as having constant trash spawning on your side of the battle and pushing to get in range would just screw things up.
Ultralisks- Again the enemy has to keep their army spread apart, or else they will get burrow charged.
Protoss changes Oracle- Once again designed to split up the enemy. If you dont properly defend your base, you cant use it. Better leave some units there or send a squad!
Tempest- This unit I can understand other peoples arguments. I think the idea might be more of area control. Anybody realize that their attack range is that of a watch tower? Although I think the idea of using it to attack from interesting angles will turn more into using it to force them to attack your death ball. So ya..... iffy about this.
Easier Recall- Only affects a small group of units. So the protoss can send out a hit force, target something, and bring them back. But considering the size of the army, if it finds any large armies it will probably die. So this forces you to spread out to cover all points of entry, instead of having them sneak around your ball.
Terran Changes First I am guessing most of the terran changes are to promote factory play instead of bio or biomech. BattleHellions- Completely a deathball supporter. Cant argue that. Just helps with mech focus. (Which will mean less bio, which will mean less of those storms that get complained about)
Widow Mine- So if I clump my units into a death ball and get hit by these, I might lose a lot. Very anti deathball. Although I do think the ten seconds is pretty high. I do see the need of a timer. Instead of exploding on collision, like a spider mine, its meant to get farther into a ball and do more damage than the spider mine, so to balance this damage there needs to be a chance to negate it.
Other general arguments- Collosus is not a hard to counter unit. You make anything that flys, which is all at the same tech level. Stop saying that its hard to counter. Low-micro, yes. Hard to counter, no.
This I have heard so many times. People feel that blizzard is at a low with creativity, but feel that they need to bring old units. How is this an answer to low creativity? Old units just so happen to not be new ideas. Lurkers are not new, they are old.
Ultimately I might agree that these change might not turn the game into a map wide struggle filled with micro battle, but I do think it will at least spread the battles apart, making them cover a larger area. Larger area means more stuff happening (rather than all on one screen. More stuff means more micro. Makes us happier, right?
Absolutely nothing you mentioned will discourage deathball play.
Vipers are made to pull things like Colossi out of the deathball. If the oponent pre-emptively spreads out, it will actually make it easier for Vipers to pick off Tanks/Colossi/whatever.
Oracles play the same role as Marines/Medivacs; they harass. They will do nothing whatsoever to break up the deathball, just like harassment doesn't.
Widow Mines won't reduce clumping; all they'll do is force you to bring detection.
Ultralisk charge will promote more deathballing because if you separate something (like your Tanks), it leaves them vulnerable to being charged before you react, whereas if you keep them close to your army, any Ultralisk popping out of the ground gets insta-gibbed by your entire army.
Easier Recall will promote more harassing, but won't get rid of deathball syndrome.
Again, you haven't said anything whatsoever that can lead anyone to believe that deathball play will go away. So many people are refusing to see the problem; THE PATHING AI IS THE PROBLEM.
Ranged units are incredibly effective because of the pathing; they clump together very well, meaning they take up as little space as possible, meaning that more of them can shoot at a time against a certain target.
AoE units are so weak because of the pathing AI; it clumps units so much that if AoE was strong they would insta-die.
Melee units are incredibly inefficient because of the pathing AI; ranged units clump together so well that they have less surface area that is vulnerable to melee attack. This also contributes to a lack of harassment viability for Zerg and Protoss.
There are a host of other problems, such as key abilities for each race reducing the potential for micro (Concussion Shells, Fungal Growth, Force Field), key units being generic, boring A-move units will little micro potential (Roaches, Marauders, Colossi), and Blizzard micromanaging balance so much that they have destroyed so many interesting and fun builds and strategies before players really had a chance to adapt to them. But the main problem always has been and always will be (since we know Blizzard will never fix it) the pathing AI.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
So you think that with unlimited unit selection, you wouldn't see Vultures and Dragoons roaming the map in TvP, for instance? Players do these things because they confer an advantage, which is a result of BW having well-designed units. It doesn't matter as much whether you have a 1 hotkey deathball or a 4 hotkey deathball. It's all about having an incentive to break off a part of your army and do something with it.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
So you think that with unlimited unit selection, you wouldn't see Vultures and Dragoons roaming the map in TvP, for instance? Players do these things because they confer an advantage, which is a result of BW having well-designed units. It doesn't matter as much whether you have a 1 hotkey deathball or a 4 hotkey deathball. It's all about having an incentive to break off a part of your army and do something with it.
Yeah you would see units roaming the map and harassing that goes on in SC2 as well. Though what I am saying contributes to deathball formation is the clumping and 1 control group that everyone uses for their main army. It's really effective and easy to do. So why not do it?
I really have no idea what game some of you people are watching or playing. As player skill is beginning to improve, so are harass and multipronged aggressions that force fights on different fronts. Terran drops, warp prism harass, the inevitable use of overlord drop from zerg, pylon warp-ins to harass new bases, runbys, storm drops, etc. We see games being won because the other person is moving around the map in a deathball, 5 zealots or 10 marines go into a base and wipe it out while an engagement is being faked as a distraction.
I have no idea why people are acting disturbed that in the end there are max army versus max army clashes...because yeah, when someone is moving their entire army toward you for all-out aggression then you are supposed to face it with your own army as well. Those clashes also look pretty nice and micro-intensive fairly often, especially nowadays as battle micro is getting better. The idea that someone "instantly wins" after a blob versus blob engagement is stupid unless the person so overwhelmingly crushed the other army then he has had an insurmountable lead for a while.
Zerg reinforcements, protoss warpins, and terran reinforcements (terrans especially loving to complain about the former two) have made it so that the game doesn't end right there. The idea that battles last 2-5 seconds is also complete exaggeration, most late-game army clashes nowadays last a good while unless, again, one player is in such a big lead he can just slap his opponent down.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
So you think that with unlimited unit selection, you wouldn't see Vultures and Dragoons roaming the map in TvP, for instance? Players do these things because they confer an advantage, which is a result of BW having well-designed units. It doesn't matter as much whether you have a 1 hotkey deathball or a 4 hotkey deathball. It's all about having an incentive to break off a part of your army and do something with it.
Yeah you would see units roaming the map and harassing that goes on in SC2 as well. Though what I am saying contributes to deathball formation is the clumping and 1 control group that everyone uses for their main army. It's really effective and easy to do. So why not do it?
You're not understanding the problem. SC2 players don't deathball because they're lazy; they deathball because it's the most efficient/best way to win due to the pathing/unit AI. This isn't the case in BW, and that's why you wouldn't see deathballing in BW, even with unlimited unit selection.
There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
On July 02 2012 06:26 Savant wrote: There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
You call BW armies a deathball and then you give the exact reason why they aren't considered a deathball...
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?
So instead of a deathball in one control group we have a deathball in two control groups? That sounds ridiculous.
On July 02 2012 05:38 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: Deathball will still be there it will always be there as long as we can select as many units as possible, Every Race has their own deathball now as well. Plus The tempest is an awesome addition to the deathball it will be great paired up with colossus. and ffs
You think that if you added unlimited control groups to BW right now, players would put everything under one hotkey and a-move it around the map?
I think not much would change, because it is actually better to have small groups of units all around the map in BW. The same thing is not true in SC2 currently.
I know for a fact almost 100% people would do that, You require far less apm to move around with a 1 control group and split and attack with mouse movements.
You think it's better because Pros that are really fast and make great decisions makes it look flawless. Though given that even Flash uses just 1 control group for his bio ball in sc2 shows it.
Tab selecting and smart spell casting has made it all pretty simple to use these giant clumps of units.
So you think that with unlimited unit selection, you wouldn't see Vultures and Dragoons roaming the map in TvP, for instance? Players do these things because they confer an advantage, which is a result of BW having well-designed units. It doesn't matter as much whether you have a 1 hotkey deathball or a 4 hotkey deathball. It's all about having an incentive to break off a part of your army and do something with it.
Yeah you would see units roaming the map and harassing that goes on in SC2 as well. Though what I am saying contributes to deathball formation is the clumping and 1 control group that everyone uses for their main army. It's really effective and easy to do. So why not do it?
You're not understanding the problem. SC2 players don't deathball because they're lazy; they deathball because it's the most efficient/best way to win due to the pathing/unit AI. This isn't the case in BW, and that's why you wouldn't see deathballing in BW, even with unlimited unit selection.
That is the problem It's effective and easy to do so why not do it? which is what I just posted. Plus the result is either you win the fight which probably 75%+ you win the game though deathballs are starting to trade a bit better now as we get good unit compositions for each race. We will always have them, Though they will trade better allowing for more fights to occur.
On July 02 2012 06:26 Savant wrote: There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
Don't even think anything drastic like that is necessary even, just changing the pathing/the way units stay spread and not clumped up would make huge differences.
Just compare an early game battle vs a death ball one. You will definitely see individual units be pulled back etc even though it's a lot quicker but then when it comes to the deathballs everything is just so clumped up and way too messy to do it effectively without the units getting stuck and stuff. Just changing the deathball battle to seem like 3-4 smaller battles thanks to the units being spread would be so much better as it would allow for more precise control without everything just being one big mess.
On July 02 2012 06:26 Savant wrote: There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
This is wrong. If 'micro' had so little impact on large engagements then fungal wouldn't be as stupidly powerful as it is. The 40 damage it puts out isn't what makes fungal so brutal, it's the lock down on movement. If they took the damage component away entirely fungal would still be used in those huge engagements. Since fungals primary function is to remove the ability for the other player to micro, micro must be playing a pretty big part.
If blizzard is seriously telling the public they wish to get rid of the deathball, why are they buffing and adding units that function best in a deathball? You can't seriously expect players to break up a deathball because they got a couple new toys to harass with. There's people talking about making units live longer, buffing splash damage, buffing certain aspects of the game, but the thing we all agree on is that there needs to be a way to make a certain group of or individual units useable from the instant they are finished AND making those same units exponentially harder to use as you get more and more of them (i.e, make it harder to use 100 zerglings, 50 marines, and 25 zealots). Controlling a more powerful army shouldn't be as easy as controlling 5 units. And if they say you have to cast 20 spells in those battles to win and you can cast spells to harass, I'm going to tear them a new asshole.
It's unfortunate that a deathball is simply better and easier to use than properly positioning and exploiting certain units. There needs to be a tier above the deathball that does not involve "i have more collosi than you do, therefore i win" scenarios. Breaking it up isn't enough. It's just going to get back together. There needs to be a way to fend off a deathball with less resources invested.
On July 02 2012 06:26 Savant wrote: There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
You call BW armies a deathball and then you give the exact reason why they aren't considered a deathball...
No. Blizzard at least thinks "breaking up the deathball" means more harass and small group engagements. I'm saying having a large army all in one place isn't bad, if there's room for players to micro against each other. Unbeatable army compositions and split-second spellcasting have too much influence on the outcome of a game, to the point of trivializing other aspects.
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?
True, a reaver really hits like a freight train but...if you think about reaver, it's extremely slow, needs another unit to be transported into battle, and needs that same unit to be really effective in combat.
Colossus is a thousand times more mobile than Reaver, supplements Gateway army well, has huge range, and it hits like a truck. See my point?
The more I read this thread , the more I tell myself that this game is fucked up and I should switch to a brain less game where this kind of discution doesn't happen ...
On July 02 2012 06:26 Savant wrote: There were deathballs in BW as well. They were just a lot more spread out and damage occurred slow enough that players had more room to micro. What makes a deathball in SC2 boring is that once you engage there's really not much you can micro besides casting spells. You can't right click your units around during a big engagement while colossi or broodlords are shooting at you, so the battle is dictated by army composition and positioning prior to the fight than a player's micro skills. Blizzard can start by giving casters less weight and toning down the splash. There's no incentive to maneuver your units in battle when storm/fungal/emp is 10x more crucial, and maneuvering under broodlord/colossus fire just gets your units massacred without firing a shot. Maybe if they removed autocast, added some cooldowns to spells, and made it so that colossi or broodlords miss when the target is moving, people will spend more time fighting screen-wide battles instead of a-moving then spamming f.
This is wrong. If 'micro' had so little impact on large engagements then fungal wouldn't be as stupidly powerful as it is. The 40 damage it puts out isn't what makes fungal so brutal, it's the lock down on movement. If they took the damage component away entirely fungal would still be used in those huge engagements. Since fungals primary function is to remove the ability for the other player to micro, micro must be playing a pretty big part.
I'm gonna call bs on this one. Especially ZvT. Fungal is SPAMMED more than emp or storm because it does damage AND roots. If it only rooted you wouldn't see it used half as much as it is. It's the fact that it roots AND does a hefty chunk of damage that is chainable (due to the root). If storm rooted I'm sure you would see it like 5x more than you do right now.
One of the big problems with the deathball is that everything ends too quickly. For instance players can't go back, 1) because a lot of times just for retreating they lose more than they gain, so high is the dps of the units 2) can't micro properly because everything happens too fast. How many times do we see players realise they should retreat because the battle isn't going in their favor, but by the time they react it's already hopeless ?
In a recent GSL ZvT, the Zerg demonstrated exactly what you need to shift the emphasis from 'deathball' play.
He did a huge runby attack into the Terran's third while the Terran's ball of marines and tanks were bearing down on his third and fourth. The casters started talking about how we were going to see a base-race, but I saw immediately what the Zerg was doing. He had a small number of infestors and banelings stationed outside his third, and used that smaller force to prevent the base-trade. Had the Terran the leisure to siege up and push forward, those small defense would have been overwhelmed, but for that narrow window of time they were able to hold - and such was the Terran's hurry that he threw away the bulk of his forces into that well-prepared defence.
Thus to split up the deathball you need:
The ability for a small force to deny or delay the progress of a substantially larger one.
Unless that is true, the deathball will always be the 'best' way to play.
Unlimited unit selection has nothing to do with how units naturally clump up in SC2. Limiting controls is not the way to solve this problem. Play SC2 and put your units in separate hotkeys. They'll still clump up because that's simply how SC2 pathfinding/movement works. No introduction of a selection limit or new units that have reaver-like splash damage will change that. Even when no splash units were present in a broodwar battle, units still didn't clump. Both unit splash damage and selection limit have nothing to do with this.
A solution to this can ONLY come from modifying the pathfinding or changing that parameter that someone mentioned could be done through the map editor. We need to all agree on what it is that is causing the clumping and strongly voice our opinion that we want that changed. It's not the units and it's not the selection limit. I gotta go test the map editor thing for myself when I get the time to. If it's really just a simple thing to change through the map editor then we can at least focus this anti-deathball movement into asking blizzard to adjust that value. If someone could record a video of before and after of movement with that value by default and modified, I would really appreciate it as I don't currently have access to SC2...
On July 02 2012 04:58 0neder wrote: 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.
Bigger maps is the absolute last thing we need right now. + Show Spoiler +
The problem with SC2 right now as an e-sport is that there's nothing goin on in the first 15 mins in the bigger maps.
For all the flaws SC2 had when it was released, I'm a strong believer that it was actually more entertaining, yes the balance was atrocious but there was more action going on, more stuff to watch. Now it's a borefest until the 15 min mark.
What SC2 needs is: much more action in the first minutes without ending the game, and put an end to the whole "flip coin" build order. Waiting 15 min for the game to pick up when it was already determined in the first 5 when a player went blindly with a better build order is just terrible.
I think the term people are actually talking about is "more open" maps. They don't necessarily need to be bigger.
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.
Restricting unit selection is not 'unintuitive, it's just a limit that effects army control for the better. I'm not necessarily advocating that, as I think the main issue is horrible closed map design and unit spacing, but I don't think it would hurt in some form.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
Oneder that is a great thread and I think when SC2 was in its alpha stages things like that would have been the correct answer. However, currently SC2 needs a different solution. I see the present situation as very similar to the MBS and automining problem that we faced when SC2 was young. We solved that with macro mechanics. It seems to me that a similar innovative solution is required here.
If you think macro mechanics solved anything, you are sorely mistaken. They just made the starcraft more volatile, promoted passive play since maxing is so easily within reach, and make comebacks and back and forth play much more difficult. The mechanics are interesting and not bad for a casual game, but they are not good for competitive play if you want back and forth (which I think most agree makes games more exciting). TLBS and many others have pointed this out.
You guys just don't get it. Some singular *UNIT* will not solve the deathball. You're just parroting Browder and Kims' poorly conceived design goals that are completely disconnected from reality and learnings from past RTS game paradigms. The deathball is a fundamental problem that requires changing fundamental aspects of the game in order to be fixed.
People here grossly overestimate how hard these changes would be. It was already done my some schmoe with the editor! You could make this change in one day, buff all AoE a bit (especially tanks), and put it in the beta immediately and go from there. These vainly imagined huge barriers to implementation are just silly. The only barrier is Browder's pride as a designer, which could be overcome with enough community support/pressure.
Then you make bigger maps that are more wide open, the battles feel more epic and exciting and large, and it will help SC2 be more successful in Korea. Implement high ground mechanic, etc.
You don't need BW units in the expansions, if you just fix the fundamentals, things will instantly get more exciting for old and new players/spectators alike.
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
This thread is one of a handful of recent threads that have resurrected discussion on improving fundamental shortcomings in SC2 in the interest of having a very long lifespan of community and esport interest, without relying on Blizzard financing and short-term popularity from expansions. This recent resurgence has been catalyzed by the community's realization that the 'wait and see, time will fix it' approach to satisfaction with game design is sorely mistaken. Browder is still clinging to arbitrary design decisions that hurt the game's potential and coming up with frankly uninteresting and one-dimentional new unit ideas.
BW was great. SC2 doesn't need to be BW, it doesn't need BW units, etc., but it MUST incorporate ALL the fundamental elements of BW's success in order to be more successful in terms of love for the game and longevity, as an e-sport and game community. Not because they were in BW, but because they turned out to be wildly successful and are frankly just principles of good game design and good spectator sport.
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
It would be nice if this thread could make us all identify exactly what it is that needs to be done to get rid of the deathballs and we could all then make a small movement to ask blizzard to change this.
Saying it's due to different types of units + limitless selection + movement/pathfinding + basically not broodwar, just doesn't get us anywhere.
I think we've all pretty much concluded that Blizzard's strategy of removing supply from the deathball for some harassment doesn't fix anything and simply avoids the issue. So how do we attack the issue?
Bommes said that changing the formation Diameter in the map editor solves the clumping(at least to an extent). That's the type of stuff we need. If we can verify that this works and see how different movement is with and without this, maybe get some players to test out custom maps with this, then we would have something solid that we could ask blizzard to specifically change without telling them to make BW(since they hate anything BW related). If it's really something that specific that can be easily tweaked then that would be great. Even if it doesn't fix everything, if it really makes the movement much more fluid and much less clumpy then that's a good start. Again, a video of the differences in movement, before and after tweaking that number would be great.
We need to raise money as a community to pay for a showmatch between top players (think Flash, Stork,etc) and get video comments from them and community pillars along the lines of "we should do this." We need to leverage our connections to somehow open communication channels with these players and get them to man up and say what they actually think (Day9, etc).
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
As you can probably tell reading through the thread their still exists a considerable amount of disagreement over what causes the death ball phenomenon (too much damage, not enough, unit radius, unlimited unit selection, pathfinding, maps, splash damage, no retreating, etc...) and how to fix it?
On July 02 2012 06:54 pzea469 wrote: Unlimited unit selection has nothing to do with how units naturally clump up in SC2. Limiting controls is not the way to solve this problem. Play SC2 and put your units in separate hotkeys. They'll still clump up because that's simply how SC2 pathfinding/movement works.
On July 02 2012 07:12 0neder wrote: We need to raise money as a community to pay for a showmatch between top players (think Flash, Stork,etc) and get video comments from them and community pillars along the lines of "we should do this." We need to leverage our connections to somehow open communication channels with these players and get them to man up and say what they actually think (Day9, etc).
Completely agree with your mindset. There are plenty of things I think most of the community would agree on, certainly many pros would agree with, but the issue always destroys everything is balance. For example, I remember most people agreeing that a defenders advantage for highground(a real defenders advantage) would be something that could only be good for the game. But these discussions got too mixed with SC2 not being BW and big changes affecting current balance way too much. Now if you were to make a thread on that on TL it would get locked, probably because it's been discussed to death. Well HOTS is coming, and balance is going to be all over the place anyways, so now is the time to try and get changes going.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
In other words, TvT.
Nada V boxer was awesome for this. It got to the point where tastetosis were tracking 3 different things... and missed the banshee in the main.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
In other words, TvT.
Nada V boxer was awesome for this. It got to the point where tastetosis were tracking 3 different things... and missed the banshee in the main.
And some of MMA's TvZ games where he drops 3 places at once constantly, like vs Losira at MLG. Definitely my favorite SC2 games.
Also, I wish someone had the balls to necro that Dynamic unit movement thread and put up a petition for implementing that into the game.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
In other words, TvT.
Nada V boxer was awesome for this. It got to the point where tastetosis were tracking 3 different things... and missed the banshee in the main.
And some of MMA's TvZ games where he drops 3 places at once constantly, like vs Losira at MLG. Definitely my favorite SC2 games.
Also, I wish someone had the balls to necro that Dynamic unit movement thread and put up a petition for implementing that into the game.
I can do it. It is pertinent to HotS beta right now, we've given things a year to see how they developed and the same shortcomings still exist. The long-term fate of the starcraft community and esports scene is on the line, IMO. Sure, if nothing is done SC2 will continue perhaps a few years past LotV, but what then? What will keep players and spectators coming back for a decade after that (or more) in spite of all the new flashy games?
However, maybe a new, more comprehensive thread is in order that includes the existing great resources like the Dynamic Spacing thread. What do you all think?
Although, I don't know if a petition is the best route. There are lots of players unfamiliar with BW that will just reject it as a BW movement because they don't understand the potential for improvement, and then the design team will just hide behind that stuff like they hide behind ladder stats when talking balance. I suggest we directly petition key community leaders for the changes, and get them to explain why the changes are fundamentally better for esports and a lasting, passionate player base.
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
This thread is one of a handful of recent threads that have resurrected discussion on improving fundamental shortcomings in SC2 in the interest of having a very long lifespan of community and esport interest, without relying on Blizzard financing and short-term popularity from expansions. This recent resurgence has been catalyzed by the community's realization that the 'wait and see, time will fix it' approach to satisfaction with game design is sorely mistaken. Browder is still clinging to arbitrary design decisions that hurt the game's potential and coming up with frankly uninteresting and one-dimentional new unit ideas.
BW was great. SC2 doesn't need to be BW, it doesn't need BW units, etc., but it MUST incorporate ALL the fundamental elements of BW's success in order to be more successful in terms of love for the game and longevity, as an e-sport and game community. Not because they were in BW, but because they turned out to be wildly successful and are frankly just principles of good game design and good spectator sport.
Now this post clarifies the issues completely. Well written post thanks fro putting it up.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
In other words, TvT.
Nada V boxer was awesome for this. It got to the point where tastetosis were tracking 3 different things... and missed the banshee in the main.
And some of MMA's TvZ games where he drops 3 places at once constantly, like vs Losira at MLG. Definitely my favorite SC2 games.
Also, I wish someone had the balls to necro that Dynamic unit movement thread and put up a petition for implementing that into the game.
Although, I don't know if a petition is the best route. There are lots of players unfamiliar with BW that will just reject it as a BW movement because they don't understand the potential for improvement, and then the design team will just hide behind that stuff like they hide behind ladder stats when talking balance. I suggest we directly petition key community leaders for the changes, and get them to explain why the changes are fundamentally better for esports and a lasting, passionate player base.
Yeah you are probably right, after all it has been like that whenever the issue is brought up. It baffles my mind how people say it will discourage micro and cant see past that and realize that, with aoe buffs that are the most natural thing that follows, it actually encourages it trough longer battles, more incentive to run from strong aoe, better positioning etc.
Thats why I think your idea of a new thread which actually tests the mod in games and does the indepth analythical stuff of the new pathing pros and cons ( something like Barrin has done in this thread) is the best way to go about it, along with reaching out to community figures.
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 worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
In other words, TvT.
Nada V boxer was awesome for this. It got to the point where tastetosis were tracking 3 different things... and missed the banshee in the main.
And some of MMA's TvZ games where he drops 3 places at once constantly, like vs Losira at MLG. Definitely my favorite SC2 games.
Also, I wish someone had the balls to necro that Dynamic unit movement thread and put up a petition for implementing that into the game.
I can do it. It is pertinent to HotS beta right now, we've given things a year to see how they developed and the same shortcomings still exist. The long-term fate of the starcraft community and esports scene is on the line, IMO. Sure, if nothing is done SC2 will continue perhaps a few years past LotV, but what then? What will keep players and spectators coming back for a decade after that (or more) in spite of all the new flashy games?
However, maybe a new, more comprehensive thread is in order that includes the existing great resources like the Dynamic Spacing thread. What do you all think?
Although, I don't know if a petition is the best route. There are lots of players unfamiliar with BW that will just reject it as a BW movement because they don't understand the potential for improvement, and then the design team will just hide behind that stuff like they hide behind ladder stats when talking balance. I suggest we directly petition key community leaders for the changes, and get them to explain why the changes are fundamentally better for esports and a lasting, passionate player base.
i would absolutely love you to no end if you were able to start something like this. We need to make our voices heard!
unfortunately I work everyday and don't have time to write up something =(
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
Bommes said that changing the formation Diameter in the map editor solves the clumping(at least to an extent). That's the type of stuff we need. If we can verify that this works and see how different movement is with and without this, maybe get some players to test out custom maps with this, then we would have something solid that we could ask blizzard to specifically change without telling them to make BW(since they hate anything BW related). If it's really something that specific that can be easily tweaked then that would be great. Even if it doesn't fix everything, if it really makes the movement much more fluid and much less clumpy then that's a good start. Again, a video of the differences in movement, before and after tweaking that number would be great.
Well, I could start clarifying what the value exactly does and maybe upload a little video and some pictures. But basically it just defines what it says, up to what distance a unit group stays in the formation that you issued the order to.
Lets say you have 3 Marines in a specific formation:
As far as I understand it as soon as you issue an order to them they get a personal region that defines the "inside" of this specific unit group. Now lets say Formation Diameter has a value of 6 (default value for melee maps), it means they will hold their specific formation (that means the distance and angles between themselves) as long as they get issued an order that is less than 6 range away from the center of their region.
So lets say you order them to a spot with range 3 away it will look like this with the formation holding:
Now if you set Formation Diameter to a high value it just means that whatever happens every unit group that gets an order will always hold the formation. If they are clumped up before they will stay clumped up, and if they are spread out (which should be way more often the case) they will stay spread out.
If you issue an order to inside the region that defines the unit group (practically if you click in between the units) they will automatically all run to the point with no formation standing. I think thats similar to how SCBW units behave.
Of course that means that it is way more complicated to do difficult unit movements the more spread out the units are. Because they will stay in the formation they were before. So you will automatically have no choice but babysit your units way more and you can't have too many different unit types in the same control groups without messing all the positioning up. Which I personally think would be cool to see/use, but I'm not sure everyone would like it. And it could complicate a lot of things a lot, I haven't tested how it behaves if you use it in a serious melee match Should be tested.
On July 02 2012 06:56 emc wrote: so what is this thread exactly? it's information we already know, it doesn't reveal anything new so I'm wondering, whats the point of this thread?
Bommes said that changing the formation Diameter in the map editor solves the clumping(at least to an extent). That's the type of stuff we need. If we can verify that this works and see how different movement is with and without this, maybe get some players to test out custom maps with this, then we would have something solid that we could ask blizzard to specifically change without telling them to make BW(since they hate anything BW related). If it's really something that specific that can be easily tweaked then that would be great. Even if it doesn't fix everything, if it really makes the movement much more fluid and much less clumpy then that's a good start. Again, a video of the differences in movement, before and after tweaking that number would be great.
Well, I could start clarifying what the value exactly does and maybe upload a little video and some pictures. But basically it just defines what it says, up to what distance a unit group stays in the formation that you issued the order to.
Lets say you have 3 Marines in a specific formation:
As far as I understand it as soon as you issue an order to them they get a personal region that defines the "inside" of this specific unit group. Now lets say Formation Diameter has a value of 6 (default value for melee maps), it means they will hold their specific formation (that means the distance and angles between themselves) as long as they get issued an order that is less than 6 range away from the center of their region.
So lets say you order them to a spot with range 3 away it will look like this with the formation holding:
Now if you set Formation Diameter to a high value it just means that whatever happens every unit group that gets an order will always hold the formation. If they are clumped up before they will stay clumped up, and if they are spread out (which should be way more often the case) they will stay spread out.
If you issue an order to inside the region that defines the unit group (practically if you click in between the units) they will automatically all run to the point with no formation standing. I think thats similar to how SCBW units behave.
Of course that means that it is way more complicated to do difficult unit movements the more spread out the units are. Because they will stay in the formation they were before. So you will automatically have no choice but babysit your units way more and you can't have too many different unit types in the same control groups without messing all the positioning up. Which I personally think would be cool to see/use, but I'm not sure everyone would like it. And it could complicate a lot of things a lot, I haven't tested how it behaves if you use it in a serious melee match Should be tested.
Thank you for clarifying this. As soon as I get some time I'll be playing around with this in the editor and maybe even try and play a match with it. It sounds very promising since from memory it seems to be similar to BW movement behavior.
On July 02 2012 08:39 Chaggi wrote: I wish that tanks had better damage and other races had less ways to make tanks obsolete in HoTS.
Yes I am pretty worried about this. Tanks are already sort of fading away in WoL. We have to remember that when tanks were nerfed, we were still on maps like Steppes of War *shudder*. I hope they are buffed for HotS
The solution isn't to make the pathfinding worse or add artificial difficulty, it's too buff splash.
Think of marines against banelings, and all the splits you have to do. That's fun and exciting. If tanks and storm were a bit better, deathballs would fix themselves at pro level because they'd just die.
Relating to HOTS, I think the blinding cloud is good against clumps, but ZvT was already the best matchup for breaking that up, thanks to baneling vs marine. The Tempest has the potential to be interesting, though, if only because it turns the one deathball into two (one ground, one clump of Tempests; it's silly to keep Tempests in your main deathball).
Yes, Browder looked at BW and instead of seeing an entire dynamic spatial paradigm built around the siege tank that made it exciting, he saw an imba unit that needed 4 hard counters per race, apparently...And also the fact that tanks were balanced around steppes of war....so many incorrect assumptions.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
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
I truly believe they should make you unable to select more than 24 units (1 page) on the screen at a time. This is similar to brood war and will cause the use of micro and control groups to split up the deathball permanently, end of story. It may seem crazy to some but I think it's the best idea and the truly skilled players will excel at it.
Edit: Also the unit spacing is a great idea. Totally would support that as well.
On top of all this the Widow Mine encourages enemy players to break up their deathballs after the mine latches on a unit inside the deathball.
An issue I can foresee, is that because protoss units are in general extremely slow.. if you don't react in the first 1-2 seconds and instantly split off the unit that got hit, you will get your sentries/hts/stalkers etc blown up and lose the game instantly.
Just feels like an annoying game mechanic that will result in gimmicky wins for T (make a unit that can win you the game w/out even doing anything yourself)
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.
I think people are confused about what a deathball really is.
A non-deathball army can still be a single army but is spread over a large area rather than in a ball.
On July 02 2012 08:59 Ribbon wrote: The solution isn't to make the pathfinding worse or add artificial difficulty, it's too buff splash.
Think of marines against banelings, and all the splits you have to do. That's fun and exciting. If tanks and storm were a bit better, deathballs would fix themselves at pro level because they'd just die.
Relating to HOTS, I think the blinding cloud is good against clumps, but ZvT was already the best matchup for breaking that up, thanks to baneling vs marine. The Tempest has the potential to be interesting, though, if only because it turns the one deathball into two (one ground, one clump of Tempests; it's silly to keep Tempests in your main deathball).
This would work too except Blizzard has moved in the opposite direction regarding splash, nerfing it instead. Storm, tanks, ghosts, have all been nerfed. Hopefully they will consider undoing some changes.
On July 02 2012 09:10 Darkman wrote: I truly believe they should make you unable to select more than 24 units (1 page) on the screen at a time. This is similar to brood war and will cause the use of micro and control groups to split up the deathball permanently, end of story. It may seem crazy to some but I think it's the best idea and the truly skilled players will excel at it.
Edit: Also the unit spacing is a great idea. Totally would support that as well.
Test it out in SC2. Just put your army in different control groups like in bw. Watch them all still clump. It's not the selection limit, it's the ai/pathfinding/movement itself.
On July 02 2012 08:59 Ribbon wrote: The solution isn't to make the pathfinding worse or add artificial difficulty, it's too buff splash.
Think of marines against banelings, and all the splits you have to do. That's fun and exciting. If tanks and storm were a bit better, deathballs would fix themselves at pro level because they'd just die.
In BW, even when there weren't any splash units present, units would still spread out and not clump up naturally like they do in SC2. Not that SC2 has to be BW, but I'd rather not see moving deathballs that split only once the battle starts. I'd rather have them naturally spread and increase splash to compensate. Looking at deathballs is ugly, whether it's during a battle or out of one, as the pictures above demonstrate. Splash radius can be increased to match BW assuming the spreading itself ever matches BW, since that's the whole reason the splash radius is smaller in SC2.
On July 02 2012 08:59 Ribbon wrote: The solution isn't to make the pathfinding worse or add artificial difficulty, it's too buff splash.
Think of marines against banelings, and all the splits you have to do. That's fun and exciting. If tanks and storm were a bit better, deathballs would fix themselves at pro level because they'd just die.
Relating to HOTS, I think the blinding cloud is good against clumps, but ZvT was already the best matchup for breaking that up, thanks to baneling vs marine. The Tempest has the potential to be interesting, though, if only because it turns the one deathball into two (one ground, one clump of Tempests; it's silly to keep Tempests in your main deathball).
This would work too except Blizzard has moved in the opposite direction regarding splash, nerfing it instead. Storm, tanks, ghosts, have all been nerfed. Hopefully they will consider undoing some changes.
Why do people think making armies move more naturally is worse?
I have never seen an army formation where the marines are dry humping each other all the way to another base.
Second of all, its almost impossible to split your army up while moving forward. With "natural" pathfinding, it would be easy to do, but not with the current SC2 (IMO bad) pathfinding. Having powerful splash especially with smart cast would just be imbalanced without changing the pathfinding.
I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
Magic box exists but it is a much smaller radius, especially on ground.
Also the effect of the pathing in BW gives the illusion of a larger magic box. As units tend to drift apart in BW, sometimes you will want an army to stay spread out (for example against lurkers/tanks), its not that hard to quickly move adjacent to the enemy to split up your army and then turn 90 degrees and attack head-on over a short distance as that is what they will naturally wanna do anyway. In SC2 its the opposite.
On July 02 2012 06:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: You're not understanding the problem. SC2 players don't deathball because they're lazy; they deathball because it's the most efficient/best way to win due to the pathing/unit AI. This isn't the case in BW, and that's why you wouldn't see deathballing in BW, even with unlimited unit selection.
Not sure I buy this totally. Watch just about any game with ball vs ball and there will be several units in the back struggling to move forward to get in range to attack, doing nothing. That is certainly not efficient. I'm honestly surprised that more players don't put 16 units in a number groups and then create their own concaves on attack. Far too often I see them let the AI do it for them and it's slow and not as effective as it could be.
That said I do agree that pathing needs to spread out a bit more, and maps opened up a bit more as well (not larger). But I also still see a lot of room for improvement on the player side. I think it's still way too early in the metagame for even Blizz to be fiddling with it.
On July 02 2012 09:05 IOvEggY wrote: discussing about a game that hasnt come out even in beta and will change drastically is really retarded imo.
Your post is an order of magnitude more retarded and useless than anything else posted in this thread. Just imo, try not to take it too personally.
Why are you personally attacking me? There really is no reason I started a opinion about the thread main subject. If you dont like it, dont say anything. I gave a legitamate response.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
On July 02 2012 09:05 IOvEggY wrote: discussing about a game that hasnt come out even in beta and will change drastically is really retarded imo.
Disagree. Why do I disagree?
Because Browder didn't begin creating SC2 around the foundation of BW's successful principles, he created his own foundation and then tried to make it like Starcraft. And in large measure he has succeeded, but there are still a few key points that he ignored that artificially limit the excitement/enjoyment ceiling. The longer we wait to talk about it, the less likely it is that Blizzard will implement something on their own and improve things while maintaining a unified scene. Sure we could do something like CSS pro mod, or Project M for Smash Bros, but that would splinter the scene and be difficult to adopt as a standard. Ideally we want the ultimate starcraft experience built into the bnet 2.0 ladder.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
That IS really bizarre. So many weird decisions/oversights, it's very unfortunate we have to put all this effort into trying to fix them. Like the inverted Raven splash and Phoenix 'moving shot,' it's very disconcerting as someone who wants to love SC2 but still just likes it and my interest is waning as I see stuff like CS:GO with Valve/Hidden Path being hyper responsive to the community, working directly with pros on a daily basis to get the foundation of the game right.
I just hope they make Protoss take more than 80 apm to reach top masters and I'll be happy.
But in all seriousness I think they need to do away with the deathball bs. It's stupid in my opinion to have the game basically rely on a player defending and massing then a moving in hopes of coming out on top. see it way too often in macro games that someone gets completely outplayed and they still manage to win. That needs to stop, thus killing the deathball which is what wins it for those folks.
Well the irony is that the deathball is simultaneously dumbed down for unlimited noob selection (like myself), but also some aspects of it make the skill ceiling too high to permit maximized micro opportunities, because everything is so hyper-concentrated.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
Everything in SC2 seems to take up less space. If you look at BW, a marine is almost the same size as a zergling. Dragoons take up the same space as tanks. The amount of space on the screen was smaller, the photon cannons were bigger. The reaver is bigger than the shuttle it zips around in.
Personally, I don't think making everything require micro to be efficient will kill the death ball. Even after that, the path finding will still be the same and it will come down to which units are most efficient without micro. It is better to pick units that require minimal micro for each race and make sure that those trade with each other well (Battle Hellion, Zergling, Zealot). They then need to make other units benefit more from micro, such as spell casters, long range units like the warhound, or units that can be used in the heat of battle, like widow mines(we don't know their target priority compared to attacking units). Then it will come down to who sets up, prepares and controls better, once players can deal with micro-free units with their own micro-free units.
For god's sake removing unlimited unit selection wouldn't make a difference. Do you really think the extra effort of having to 1a2a3a instead of 1a would cause people to abandon the tried and true playstyles that they've grown so comfortable with?
What prevents deathballs in BW isn't the 12 unit cap, it's that AoE is so strong and that the defender's advantage is much greater due to the pathing AI and high ground. If you take away storm from BW, hydra deathballs would be unstoppable in zvp. If you take away lurkers, MM deathballs would be unstoppable in tvz. Even tanks would be much worse if units would just get in range and shoot them instead of durdling around whenever there's some kind of obstacle between it and the tank. (An aside: ever try to get goons to attack a tank behind a wall? Right clicking it doesn't work, you have to move it right up to the wall itself and use the attack command only when it's in range. This unit behaviour in the context of a larger battle is a large contributor to defender's advantage in BW.)
I'm not saying bring BW pathing back (I'm pretty strongly against it), but we do need a stronger form of defender's advantage. The most anti deathball situation possible was when defender's advantage was basically infinite - when 2 lurkers and a defiler could hold off any infinite sized terran army. Incidentally late game zvt before the mech transition arose was the most multitasking intensive situation in the game. I've dug up a post by Ver explaining why this reduces deathballs:
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups.
I also agree somewhat with the people who want to buff AoE, but with the auto-clumping behaviour of SC2 it'd almost surely become overpowered. Like many have said it really annoys me when I meticulously spread my units out before a single move command undoes all of that. A possible solution would be to add a 'formation movement' option like WC3 had, which would also mitigate effects of the proposed AoE buff. But then splitting would become much easier and banelings would become useless. It's such a tight spot the game has gotten itself into balance-wise that the only viable way of introducing such features is in a balance upheaval like an expansion.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
Everything in SC2 seems to take up less space. If you look at BW, a marine is almost the same size as a zergling. Dragoons take up the same space as tanks. The amount of space on the screen was smaller, the photon cannons were bigger. The reaver is bigger than the shuttle it zips around in.
Personally, I don't think making everything require micro to be efficient will kill the death ball. Even after that, the path finding will still be the same and it will come down to which units are most efficient without micro. It is better to pick units that require minimal micro for each race and make sure that those trade with each other well (Battle Hellion, Zergling, Zealot). They then need to make other units benefit more from micro, such as spell casters, long range units like the warhound, or units that can be used in the heat of battle, like widow mines(we don't know their target priority compared to attacking units). Then it will come down to who sets up, prepares and controls better, once players can deal with micro-free units with their own micro-free units.
No no no no, you don't build a game around most units requiring 0 micro and then throw in a bunch that require some micro and call it a day, that's terrible design and that's where all the problems SC2 has come from.
Everything needs to be able to scale with the skill of a player especially the units you use most (!!!), that is how you make a good e-sport game. A pro can't do more with a single zergling or single marine than I can for example, and that's a problem.
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?
True, a reaver really hits like a freight train but...if you think about reaver, it's extremely slow, needs another unit to be transported into battle, and needs that same unit to be really effective in combat.
Colossus is a thousand times more mobile than Reaver, supplements Gateway army well, has huge range, and it hits like a truck. See my point?
Also, imagine the relationship between scrabs and forcefields. That would be very intresting.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
Everything in SC2 seems to take up less space. If you look at BW, a marine is almost the same size as a zergling. Dragoons take up the same space as tanks. The amount of space on the screen was smaller, the photon cannons were bigger. The reaver is bigger than the shuttle it zips around in.
Personally, I don't think making everything require micro to be efficient will kill the death ball. Even after that, the path finding will still be the same and it will come down to which units are most efficient without micro. It is better to pick units that require minimal micro for each race and make sure that those trade with each other well (Battle Hellion, Zergling, Zealot). They then need to make other units benefit more from micro, such as spell casters, long range units like the warhound, or units that can be used in the heat of battle, like widow mines(we don't know their target priority compared to attacking units). Then it will come down to who sets up, prepares and controls better, once players can deal with micro-free units with their own micro-free units.
No no no no, you don't build a game around most units requiring 0 micro and then throw in a bunch that require some micro and call it a day, that's terrible design and that's where all the problems SC2 has come from.
Everything needs to be able to scale with the skill of a player especially the units you use most (!!!), that is how you make a good e-sport game. A pro can't do more with a single zergling or single marine than I can for example, and that's a problem.
I would argue that they can and we see it all the time. Most pros get much more mileage out the 4 early game zerglings than any of my opponents. I am not talking about all units, but being aware that there are some units, like most melee units, that have an upper limit to how much more efficient they can be made through micro. Beyond target firing, there is only so much a siege tank can benefit from micro. Accepting this, while making units that can benefit from micro and that can make a difference in a large battle will do a lot to remove the death ball.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
Everything in SC2 seems to take up less space. If you look at BW, a marine is almost the same size as a zergling. Dragoons take up the same space as tanks. The amount of space on the screen was smaller, the photon cannons were bigger. The reaver is bigger than the shuttle it zips around in.
Personally, I don't think making everything require micro to be efficient will kill the death ball. Even after that, the path finding will still be the same and it will come down to which units are most efficient without micro. It is better to pick units that require minimal micro for each race and make sure that those trade with each other well (Battle Hellion, Zergling, Zealot). They then need to make other units benefit more from micro, such as spell casters, long range units like the warhound, or units that can be used in the heat of battle, like widow mines(we don't know their target priority compared to attacking units). Then it will come down to who sets up, prepares and controls better, once players can deal with micro-free units with their own micro-free units.
No no no no, you don't build a game around most units requiring 0 micro and then throw in a bunch that require some micro and call it a day, that's terrible design and that's where all the problems SC2 has come from.
Everything needs to be able to scale with the skill of a player especially the units you use most (!!!), that is how you make a good e-sport game. A pro can't do more with a single zergling or single marine than I can for example, and that's a problem.
I would argue that they can and we see it all the time. Most pros get much more mileage out the 4 early game zerglings than any of my opponents. I am not talking about all units, but being aware that there are some units, like most melee units, that have an upper limit to how much more efficient they can be made through micro. Beyond target firing, there is only so much a siege tank can benefit from micro. Accepting this, while making units that can benefit from micro and that can make a difference in a large battle will do a lot to remove the death ball.
In BW the difference between a pro's units and a newbie's units is just immense, it's like completely different units all together.
That's just not the case at all in SC2, yes pros will obviously be better, like better splitting and positioning, but that's it. You never say to yourself "omg, I had no idea this unit could do that!", it never happens in SC2.
The only exception I can think of would be MarineKing and his marine micro against banelings.
On July 02 2012 09:31 Falling wrote: I wonder if adding magic box for ground units back into the game would fix some of the death ball problems. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong because I'm rubbish, but I was testing both BW and SC2 to see if you could the units would stay in formation, but it just doesn't work in SC2 without constantly giving more orders to separate.
BW could pack units pretty tight, but with magic box you could spread them out and keep them spread out. Once again, it's a fix that doesn't 'break' unit ai, but adds more options for the player. Pack them in tight it you want or separate them if you want. I still find the constant adjusting due to unit pushing rather irritating as it adds an element of unpredictability of where my units are going to be. But even if you kept unit pushing and shoving, ground magic box would be nice.
As for the Oracle being a fix for Deathball... I know that' it's intended purpose and we will have to see how it plays out; however, it doesn't really change the Protoss army does it? I think it was Tyler that saying that except for the Tempest the core of the Protoss army remains unchanged. So if there is or isn't a problem with deathball, the Oracle isn't going to change it as the composition remains unchanged. You'll just divert a small amount of supply to constantly debuffing the mineral line.
magic box ai already exists in sc2
but the easiest way to explain it is just by saying its "smaller"
1 thing blizzard could do is remove 2 unit sizes of units and only have 1. (1 is used while attackinging standing still etc, and a smaller one is used when they are moving). 100 lings moving can take as small space as 50 lings standing still basically. i never understood why they did this in the first place
Everything in SC2 seems to take up less space. If you look at BW, a marine is almost the same size as a zergling. Dragoons take up the same space as tanks. The amount of space on the screen was smaller, the photon cannons were bigger. The reaver is bigger than the shuttle it zips around in.
Personally, I don't think making everything require micro to be efficient will kill the death ball. Even after that, the path finding will still be the same and it will come down to which units are most efficient without micro. It is better to pick units that require minimal micro for each race and make sure that those trade with each other well (Battle Hellion, Zergling, Zealot). They then need to make other units benefit more from micro, such as spell casters, long range units like the warhound, or units that can be used in the heat of battle, like widow mines(we don't know their target priority compared to attacking units). Then it will come down to who sets up, prepares and controls better, once players can deal with micro-free units with their own micro-free units.
No no no no, you don't build a game around most units requiring 0 micro and then throw in a bunch that require some micro and call it a day, that's terrible design and that's where all the problems SC2 has come from.
Everything needs to be able to scale with the skill of a player especially the units you use most (!!!), that is how you make a good e-sport game. A pro can't do more with a single zergling or single marine than I can for example, and that's a problem.
I would argue that they can and we see it all the time. Most pros get much more mileage out the 4 early game zerglings than any of my opponents. I am not talking about all units, but being aware that there are some units, like most melee units, that have an upper limit to how much more efficient they can be made through micro. Beyond target firing, there is only so much a siege tank can benefit from micro. Accepting this, while making units that can benefit from micro and that can make a difference in a large battle will do a lot to remove the death ball.
In BW the difference between a pro's units and a newbie's units is just immense, it's like completely different units all together.
That's just not the case at all in SC2, yes pros will obviously be better, like better splitting and positioning, but that's it. You never say to yourself "omg, I had no idea this unit could do that!", it never happens in SC2.
The only exception I can think of would be MarineKing and his marine micro against banelings.
Yes, that's about the only one unfortunately, To be honest, even a Silver player like me can approach psi-storm blankets in SC2 like Jangbi did in BW (which was the most inhuman task I have ever seen, only 2-3 players are capable of that).
On July 02 2012 12:04 Plansix wrote: I would argue that they can and we see it all the time. Most pros get much more mileage out the 4 early game zerglings than any of my opponents.
Zerglings and marines are about the only exceptions, and that's because they are fast/have instantaneous cooldown. Fantasy built a career off of vulture patrol micro in BW. Is he expected to get the same satisfaction from SC2 from avoiding banelings? That's not even a universal application, nor can it be offensive (which is usually the most fun way to play). SC2 needs more fast units and moving shot, rather than having everything more or less move at the same speed. All sc2 air is slow except for the phoenix, and very powerful. The air dynamic would be more interesting if some air units were faster but weaker.
For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker.
On July 02 2012 13:35 pzea469 wrote: For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units.
On July 02 2012 11:48 Wonders wrote: For god's sake removing unlimited unit selection wouldn't make a difference. Do you really think the extra effort of having to 1a2a3a instead of 1a would cause people to abandon the tried and true playstyles that they've grown so comfortable with?
What prevents deathballs in BW isn't the 12 unit cap, it's that AoE is so strong and that the defender's advantage is much greater due to the pathing AI and high ground. If you take away storm from BW, hydra deathballs would be unstoppable in zvp. If you take away lurkers, MM deathballs would be unstoppable in tvz. Even tanks would be much worse if units would just get in range and shoot them instead of durdling around whenever there's some kind of obstacle between it and the tank. (An aside: ever try to get goons to attack a tank behind a wall? Right clicking it doesn't work, you have to move it right up to the wall itself and use the attack command only when it's in range. This unit behaviour in the context of a larger battle is a large contributor to defender's advantage in BW.)
I'm not saying bring BW pathing back (I'm pretty strongly against it), but we do need a stronger form of defender's advantage. The most anti deathball situation possible was when defender's advantage was basically infinite - when 2 lurkers and a defiler could hold off any infinite sized terran army. Incidentally late game zvt before the mech transition arose was the most multitasking intensive situation in the game. I've dug up a post by Ver explaining why this reduces deathballs:
Removing unlimited unit selection would help. And so would removing MBS. The harder it is to macro and micro, the less likely people will just sit and wait to hit 200/200 and 1a. People will abandon current playstyles when they require more than 2 hot keys just to manage an army. The ball style play will exist, but it wouldn't be as bad as the 1a armies we see today.
In other words, APM factors into playstyle. Require more APM, less deathball shenanigans. It takes a true macro beast to develop a deathball really fast in BW and not die. BW mechanics is a prime example of what makes starcraft....starcraft. Players can win with pure execution and mechanics in BW. Strategies can fail, but players can still come back with superior mechanics and playstyle throughout a match. SC2 is too dumbed down, a majority of the game plays itself for you, you just have to remember to scout and 4sd, 4sz, etc. then 1a. Make it harder to do everything and people will realize they can abuse weaknesses in their opponents playstyle without having to go 200/200 with the right unit composition to counter every single unit the opponent has.
On July 02 2012 15:13 emc wrote: I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker.
On July 02 2012 13:35 pzea469 wrote: For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units.
Exactly what I'm thinking. I still have to see what type of impact this would have on actually playing a match though, but it looks very promising.
What seals the deal for me is that you could have many different tactics via formation that would be useful in certain situations.
For example balling up versus pure zergling would be good but not standard. You could arrange your army to have marauders leading the pack to tank banelings or use various other formations based on the map around you; it's a very dynamic change that nerfs the overkill syndrome we have with clumps of units and storms, fungals thermal lance and tank splash.
On July 02 2012 11:48 Wonders wrote: For god's sake removing unlimited unit selection wouldn't make a difference. Do you really think the extra effort of having to 1a2a3a instead of 1a would cause people to abandon the tried and true playstyles that they've grown so comfortable with?
What prevents deathballs in BW isn't the 12 unit cap, it's that AoE is so strong and that the defender's advantage is much greater due to the pathing AI and high ground. If you take away storm from BW, hydra deathballs would be unstoppable in zvp. If you take away lurkers, MM deathballs would be unstoppable in tvz. Even tanks would be much worse if units would just get in range and shoot them instead of durdling around whenever there's some kind of obstacle between it and the tank. (An aside: ever try to get goons to attack a tank behind a wall? Right clicking it doesn't work, you have to move it right up to the wall itself and use the attack command only when it's in range. This unit behaviour in the context of a larger battle is a large contributor to defender's advantage in BW.)
I'm not saying bring BW pathing back (I'm pretty strongly against it), but we do need a stronger form of defender's advantage. The most anti deathball situation possible was when defender's advantage was basically infinite - when 2 lurkers and a defiler could hold off any infinite sized terran army. Incidentally late game zvt before the mech transition arose was the most multitasking intensive situation in the game. I've dug up a post by Ver explaining why this reduces deathballs:
Removing unlimited unit selection would help. And so would removing MBS. The harder it is to macro and micro, the less likely people will just sit and wait to hit 200/200 and 1a. People will abandon current playstyles when they require more than 2 hot keys just to manage an army. The ball style play will exist, but it wouldn't be as bad as the 1a armies we see today.
In other words, APM factors into playstyle. Require more APM, less deathball shenanigans. It takes a true macro beast to develop a deathball really fast in BW and not die. BW mechanics is a prime example of what makes starcraft....starcraft. Players can win with pure execution and mechanics in BW. Strategies can fail, but players can still come back with superior mechanics and playstyle throughout a match. SC2 is too dumbed down, a majority of the game plays itself for you, you just have to remember to scout and 4sd, 4sz, etc. then 1a. Make it harder to do everything and people will realize they can abuse weaknesses in their opponents playstyle without having to go 200/200 with the right unit composition to counter every single unit the opponent has.
There just needs to be more incentive for players to directly control smaller groups of their army over using it all as a big blob, and that means there needs to be numerous situations where attacking into your opponent incorrectly means a significant blow and a chance at losing the game. Better AoE might help, but I don't think it's a great solution. Map design could also contibute, as it is now, SC2 maps make it hard to set up significant enough concaves where clumping up your army would be a big problem.
On July 02 2012 17:15 ThePlayer33 wrote: i dont think spider mine stops deathball. small clumps are still extremely vulnerable to AOE (bw storm). its unit spacing.
Not spider mines in particular, but stonger, unforgivable AoE will solve the problem. Sure, unit spacing is part of the problem, but strong AoE will eventually force players to split their units and eventually their army if bottlenecks don't allow for 200-200 battles with spaced out units.
It's just that, unlike in bw, sc2 players whined and whined about AoE so it got nerfed, instead of learning how to split their units and armies. One positive example i can think of is thors vs. mutas - there, blizzards didn't back out for once and zerg players learned to magic box their mutas.
However, just think of storm, emp, tanks - they all got nerfed big time so players didn't need to learn split their units. And also the issue of defenders advantage needs to be adressed as already pointed out multiple times. If i can't stop the deathball with a weaker force at least temporarily, i'm pretty much forced to deathball myself to stop it. Unfortunately, sc2 defensive mechanisms only work well against harass largely because siege units can be so readily brought with the deathball and don't have severe movement/vulnerability limitations.
The collossus is IMO the prime example of what is wrong with sc2 unit design. It's a siege unit with brutal AoE that has none of the limitations that a siege unit should have - slow movement or even lack of mobility (tank), low vision to require a spotter, low hp, friendly fire, large radius to block own units. Instead, it's as fast as any normal unit, can walk up and see up cliffs, have high hp and can even stacked upon your own land units. And it doesn't have friendly fire, for some reason which i fail to understand - it's a straight up dumbed down 1a-unit. So naturally, it's not that surprising that most protoss deathballs center about collossi.
BW siege units were a lot stronger (just think of what a scarab did to a bunch of marines), up to the point that it was practically impossible to break a bottleneck of 2-3 siege units with an unfinite amount of units. So players had to think innovative and explore other avenues of attack. At the same time, those siege units had severe limitations, especially considering their mobility (tanks had to siege, lurkers to burrow, reavers were just straight up sloooooow). On top of that, these units all had friendly fire - making you think twice to charge in with your main force while bombarding with your siege.
Honestly I don't really think this is something that needs to be addressed directly, even though I really like some of the concepts of the units in hots and also that most of them don't really seem to be made to be massed up. Deathballs were a huge issues early last year when everyone was just 1aing around. Nowadays people are starting to understand the importance of concaves, using multiple control groups for your armies (I have seen some people going all the way up to 5 control groups just for their army) and most importantly attacking at multiple places at once while splitting up your army. In most pro level games, especially between koreans, you will mainly see a lot of smaller/bigger battles throughout the entire match and not that much of two people building shit, a moving and one guy coming out on top.
I feel like both map design (e.g. allowing better concaves, making high/low ground more important, easy flanking spots etc.) and just the natural evolution of the game will take care of this. Though I have to say the hots units certainly don't promote deathball play and I'm sure some of them will help doing what they are supposed to do, which is tie supply up in units that are not key parts of your army.
I really feel like people need to give sc2 so much more time, we are only 2 years in and 2/3 of the game aren't even out yet. And yet we still start to see people get actually good at this and we have already seen soooo many breath taking insanly awesome games, I can't wait to see where sc2 will be in 5-6 years from now on, when we have all expansions and people who have figured the game out to the mineral, I doubt deathball mechanics will be anyones concern by then.
On July 02 2012 01:30 polyphonyEX wrote: Blizzard seems less creative than I would like. Just really poor game design in the first place.
Yeah, pretty much this. All the new ideas that they are attempting to implement feel pretty damn weird. Why not put the lurker (ride that dead horse, rideeeee motherfucker) back in the godamned game?
The reason why I want a power unit like that is that it is really fucking supply efficient. A unit like the lurker would allow more attacks to happen all around the map b/c it is really good at holding space for a low supply count.
Also - why are the units in SCII so damn supply heavy? Seriously, with 88 drones I can only have 56 roaches, and that's without subtracting queen supply. That's rediculous.
You need to allow more units to be produced if you want to see more attacks all around the map, IMO. Also, reduce the supply cost of the current units. A six supply ultra is fucking rediculous.
Also, 3 supply siege tank, wtf? That's my current issue with this game, armies are too damn small. That's why as zerg I feel you have to build lings b/c all the other units are so fucking supply inefficient.
There is a point where you can get enough power units and casters (dark swarm) that allow you to send side attacks all over the map and the like. A terran siege line for example. With the siege line set up the terran is free to drop b/c he has enough firepower not to lose all his marines immediately.
Now the opposite side of the argument is that you should not have to build as many drones to get the same income rate, so that you can devote more population altogether to your army.
Would be amazing to see the units stay in formation.. Looks so much more fun managing the army already. Blizz we want to be an awesome army commander, and that is the whole point of the game. army management.
On July 02 2012 11:48 Wonders wrote: For god's sake removing unlimited unit selection wouldn't make a difference. Do you really think the extra effort of having to 1a2a3a instead of 1a would cause people to abandon the tried and true playstyles that they've grown so comfortable with?
What prevents deathballs in BW isn't the 12 unit cap, it's that AoE is so strong and that the defender's advantage is much greater due to the pathing AI and high ground. If you take away storm from BW, hydra deathballs would be unstoppable in zvp. If you take away lurkers, MM deathballs would be unstoppable in tvz. Even tanks would be much worse if units would just get in range and shoot them instead of durdling around whenever there's some kind of obstacle between it and the tank. (An aside: ever try to get goons to attack a tank behind a wall? Right clicking it doesn't work, you have to move it right up to the wall itself and use the attack command only when it's in range. This unit behaviour in the context of a larger battle is a large contributor to defender's advantage in BW.)
I'm not saying bring BW pathing back (I'm pretty strongly against it), but we do need a stronger form of defender's advantage. The most anti deathball situation possible was when defender's advantage was basically infinite - when 2 lurkers and a defiler could hold off any infinite sized terran army. Incidentally late game zvt before the mech transition arose was the most multitasking intensive situation in the game. I've dug up a post by Ver explaining why this reduces deathballs:
Removing unlimited unit selection would help. And so would removing MBS. The harder it is to macro and micro, the less likely people will just sit and wait to hit 200/200 and 1a. People will abandon current playstyles when they require more than 2 hot keys just to manage an army. The ball style play will exist, but it wouldn't be as bad as the 1a armies we see today.
In other words, APM factors into playstyle. Require more APM, less deathball shenanigans. It takes a true macro beast to develop a deathball really fast in BW and not die. BW mechanics is a prime example of what makes starcraft....starcraft. Players can win with pure execution and mechanics in BW. Strategies can fail, but players can still come back with superior mechanics and playstyle throughout a match. SC2 is too dumbed down, a majority of the game plays itself for you, you just have to remember to scout and 4sd, 4sz, etc. then 1a. Make it harder to do everything and people will realize they can abuse weaknesses in their opponents playstyle without having to go 200/200 with the right unit composition to counter every single unit the opponent has.
Sounds like a damn boring spectator sport.
Not sure how you can think that but it's already proven that it's not so it doesn't matter either way.
If you actually haven't watched any BW games then you should do that first before coming to a conclusion whether it's boring or not.
On July 02 2012 00:52 Archerofaiur wrote: The Deathball. It is a phenomenon that has come to define almost every game of Starcraft 2. Huge armies grouped together that move together until one big battle that determines the game. The problem primarily arose out of changes to the UI, both improved pathing and unlimited unit selection. As we learn more about Heart of the Swarm it becomes clear that the developers are focused on breaking up the death ball.
I fully agree with you on the problem which the Deathball causes, BUT your (and possibly Blizzards) conclusion is totally false. The real way to "nerf the Deathball" would be to nerf the mechanics which made it possible ... i.e. the unlimited unit selection, but much more the perfect movement AI. In addition to this the macroing capabilities need to be reduced.
Taking a fast paced game in which people have problems to handle all the action and trying to make it even more fast paced in an attempt to fix it is plainly wrong. The game NEEDS TO BE SLOWED DOWN and made less convenient. In a less convenient game the mistakes you make arent game-ending, but in the current version of SC2 they often enough are.
WAKE UP BLIZZARD! Not every movie sequel with "higher kill count" or "bigger explosions" is automatically better, but thats what I feel you are trying to do. Please stop before its too late and only kids trained from their infancy can handle it.
Lol reading through this thread just makes me realize that through SC2's attempt to fix unit pathing by making it near perfectly easy to get a unit from place to place, they actually broke the unit pathing making it constantly clump. Weird.
It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
I hate this argument. People should stop thinking about it being technology having evolved and instead start thinking about it being rules for the game. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should/have to do something.
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
You cant do anything against this EXCEPT through creating "OP units" (burrowed Banelings for example), but many of these have already been nerfed and thus the Deathball survived. That is BAD. The two "improvement" which you dont think as bad are the reasons for its existence.
In BW it didnt matter that much if a unit was "OP" and killed other units rather efficiently simply because those other units didnt make up 90% of your opponents army. The Siege Tank is a prime example. For SC2 it had to be nerfed or else you could kill a majority of a Zerg army which is rushing you with just 2-3 of them. How does the reality look like today? The Zerg army approaches and simply overruns the Terrans anyways and the friendly fire from the Siege Tanks deals about half the damage. If Blizzard had "advanced technology" and added friendly fire to all area damage effects I wouldnt oppose you as much, but they didnt do that. Unlimited unit selection and perfect movement AI simply screw up the game too much ... in short: the Deathball is bad!
Oh and a general hint: Not every new technology is good! When you get older you might notice those 10-year-old kids watching porn on their smartphones and that isnt a good thing at least in my book. Well technology certainly has advanced, but humanity hasnt.
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
Death balls have micro.... Blink... Fungals.... stutterstep... Everything you can think of. The BW guys aren't trying to make this their game but trying to analyze what made BW great and how that can positively apply to SC2.
The problem right now is that unit pathing is designed for 1 unit. If you select 1 unit it will go to the area it was told to go. Likewise, in BW it would turn a couple times before it actually got to the positioning(depending on the order location). SC2 unit pathing is good and all for that one unit, but when it comes to controlling the entire army every unit trys to get to the exact same point like 200 people trying to cram through a doggy door. The units push together, clumping heavily, and sometimes take a little bit to actually settle down once every single unit makes it through to that 1 little point. However what these guys are saying is that BW tended to keep a positioning that allowed more micro to make more of a difference to the battle(not to mention making the armies look huge).
SC2 while designed to have good unit pathing for a unit, has bad pathing when it comes to moving all units together. My thought is why not keep the exact same pathing SC2 has while moving 1 or so units, but do what the BW guys are saying while controlling an army.
I'm not an expert or knowledgeable in anyway about BW, but I like to think I understand the gist of their argument. If I'm wrong about anything please tell me I always enjoy learning.
(Also I fully support bringing the lurker back because the swarm host is boring, retarded, and enables deathball based play...)
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
It does not matter what technology was used to make the game. If the tool is insufficient comptetive wise it has to be changed. Whats worrying for me is that Blizzard chose the easier way to simply remove supply from deathball. Imho its "ethically" wrong. Its saying "look we have a new unit for you, but because our technology makes it hard for everyone, this unit will be only used as stand-alone not a part of our default deathball".
It looks for me as they are giving us a fish not a fishing rod. Saying you can do only this and this with this unit, but you cant do this and this. Pigeon holing is a bad design. I would be happier with less units but more flexibility than more units and less flexibility.
I'm not sure if either of these concepts will break the death ball... The Tempest is almost a perfect addition to bring battles to bear... force engagements almost.
The oracle was a great idea but now with the cloak field, don't you think Protoss players will take a few oracles along with their death ball to use cloak during major battles?
I'm not sure how the widow mine works but that'll also be useful to take out unit clumps rather than single units or a group of 5 harrassing zealots going into your third. So once again, a Terran player would rather have 3 widow mines sticking to the Protoss death ball during a major battle than have them pick up and kill 3 of the 5 zealots running to your third.
On July 02 2012 22:30 sjperera wrote: I'm not sure if either of these concepts will break the death ball... The Tempest is almost a perfect addition to bring battles to bear... force engagements almost.
The oracle was a great idea but now with the cloak field, don't you think Protoss players will take a few oracles along with their death ball to use cloak during major battles?
I'm not sure how the widow mine works but that'll also be useful to take out unit clumps rather than single units or a group of 5 harrassing zealots going into your third. So once again, a Terran player would rather have 3 widow mines sticking to the Protoss death ball during a major battle than have them pick up and kill 3 of the 5 zealots running to your third.
Indeed and the oracle cloak is made for the deathball.
Clumping up units = more units in a smaller space = more cloaked units by a single oracle
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
I hate this argument. People should stop thinking about it being technology having evolved and instead start thinking about it being rules for the game. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should/have to do something.
its a game. you're not going to attract many next generation of progamers with an unintuitive/bad interface and UI. Imo one of the reason that flash, bisu, JD still dominates in broodwar scene for so long because lack of new talented players compare to the past, and the scene basically starts to stale and revolves around the same pros.
I don't think the deathball problem is as severe as many of you try to make them out to be. Pros are starting to move away from the "deathball" for a while now. The only real offender still true in this game is protoss, but even then Hero shows that they don't have to play this way. It just so happens to be the most convient and safest way. With few changes to protoss, I believe all MU would be improved much better.
I still think ling moves too fast, and that basically allows zerg to avoid punishment of misplacing lings and not spotting drops. Their t3 is also way too strong, while at the same time lacking a real t2 unit that is gas heavy and powerful. zerg's larva mechanics is also extremely forgiving and borderline broken with "larva saving" during late game, but that's another story.
On July 02 2012 22:30 sjperera wrote: I'm not sure if either of these concepts will break the death ball... The Tempest is almost a perfect addition to bring battles to bear... force engagements almost.
The oracle was a great idea but now with the cloak field, don't you think Protoss players will take a few oracles along with their death ball to use cloak during major battles?
I'm not sure how the widow mine works but that'll also be useful to take out unit clumps rather than single units or a group of 5 harrassing zealots going into your third. So once again, a Terran player would rather have 3 widow mines sticking to the Protoss death ball during a major battle than have them pick up and kill 3 of the 5 zealots running to your third.
its not like you get to pick who you attach with widow mines. As a protoss you want to get those 3-5 zealots in as sacrifices rather than having your whole army blown up
By adding more units that forces "zone controls", you inevitable want to break up your army into smaller values. The question now depends on how effective those zone controls are, and no way for us to tell until beta
On July 02 2012 22:30 sjperera wrote: I'm not sure if either of these concepts will break the death ball... The Tempest is almost a perfect addition to bring battles to bear... force engagements almost.
The oracle was a great idea but now with the cloak field, don't you think Protoss players will take a few oracles along with their death ball to use cloak during major battles?
I'm not sure how the widow mine works but that'll also be useful to take out unit clumps rather than single units or a group of 5 harrassing zealots going into your third. So once again, a Terran player would rather have 3 widow mines sticking to the Protoss death ball during a major battle than have them pick up and kill 3 of the 5 zealots running to your third.
Indeed and the oracle cloak is made for the deathball.
Clumping up units = more units in a smaller space = more cloaked units by a single oracle
But a 100HP Unit for 200 Gas? It will get sniped down immediately, since it is the only thing not cloaked. For example 4-5 Vikings (not sure if Oracle is armored) one-shot it, if there are Colossi you should have those Vikings, or if you have seen the Oracles harass before (they inflict permanent damage to an Oracle in only 2 seconds, keeping one Viking above your Base will be useful).
Judging from the videos Blizzard showed, the cloak should be used to make drops and harass or rushes vs the Protoss harder.
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
I hate this argument. People should stop thinking about it being technology having evolved and instead start thinking about it being rules for the game. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should/have to do something.
its a game. you're not going to attract many next generation of progamers with an unintuitive/bad interface and UI. Imo one of the reason that flash, bisu, JD still dominates in broodwar scene for so long because lack of new talented players compare to the past, and the scene basically starts to stale and revolves around the same pros.
Oh come on ... just because someone says "Blizzard has gone too far with making UI movement perfect and the unlimited unit selection is bad" does NOT mean he wants to have Brood War settings. Its NOT one or the other, but there could be some shades of grey involved.
Just look at THIS THREAD and combine it with "24 unit max per control group" and you have a shade of grey instead. I also suggested already that the player should be able to CHOOSE between open and close formation and thus decide himself if he wants to take the risk to die to area damage OR be on the safe side but with lower damage output from his own side. The SC2 version is simply bad, because it does NOT offer choice ... or rather "force the player to make a decision".
The technology is there to do it ... all that is missing is the will to do it.
EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
I hate this argument. People should stop thinking about it being technology having evolved and instead start thinking about it being rules for the game. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should/have to do something.
its a game. you're not going to attract many next generation of progamers with an unintuitive/bad interface and UI. Imo one of the reason that flash, bisu, JD still dominates in broodwar scene for so long because lack of new talented players compare to the past, and the scene basically starts to stale and revolves around the same pros.
Oh come on ... just because someone says "Blizzard has gone too far with making UI movement perfect and the unlimited unit selection is bad" does NOT mean he wants to have Brood War settings. Its NOT one or the other, but there could be some shades of grey involved.
Just look at THIS THREAD and combine it with "24 unit max per control group" and you have a shade of grey instead. I also suggested already that the player should be able to CHOOSE between open and close formation and thus decide himself if he wants to take the risk to die to area damage OR be on the safe side but with lower damage output from his own side. The SC2 version is simply bad, because it does NOT offer choice ... or rather "force the player to make a decision".
The technology is there to do it ... all that is missing is the will to do it.
EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
24 units selections = ~5-6 controls just to select your max army (forget about controlling a few ghosts and ravens here and there). no it still wouldn't do anything, its a limit for the sake of there being a limit. The only reason why it was 12 unit in 1998 was due to engine limitation.
and to your edit. Because marines already have the range upgrade
On July 02 2012 21:58 Insoleet wrote: It seems like people would like to play Broodwar with higher graphisms. I dont agree.
Technology has evolved, so units are not as retarded as in the past. Their pathing is good, the unlimited control group is good.
The problem is not deathball. The problem is that deathball totally deny any micro (expect splittings bioball and kitting). If micro would make deathball less or more powerful, that would be a better game. And i think the choices blizzard made are the good ones. The deathball will still be there, but with micro, you'll be able to totally destroy it (or totally get destroyed).
I hate this argument. People should stop thinking about it being technology having evolved and instead start thinking about it being rules for the game. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should/have to do something.
its a game. you're not going to attract many next generation of progamers with an unintuitive/bad interface and UI. Imo one of the reason that flash, bisu, JD still dominates in broodwar scene for so long because lack of new talented players compare to the past, and the scene basically starts to stale and revolves around the same pros.
Oh come on ... just because someone says "Blizzard has gone too far with making UI movement perfect and the unlimited unit selection is bad" does NOT mean he wants to have Brood War settings. Its NOT one or the other, but there could be some shades of grey involved.
Just look at THIS THREAD and combine it with "24 unit max per control group" and you have a shade of grey instead. I also suggested already that the player should be able to CHOOSE between open and close formation and thus decide himself if he wants to take the risk to die to area damage OR be on the safe side but with lower damage output from his own side. The SC2 version is simply bad, because it does NOT offer choice ... or rather "force the player to make a decision".
The technology is there to do it ... all that is missing is the will to do it.
EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
24 units selections = ~5-6 controls just to select your max army (forget about controlling a few ghosts and ravens here and there). no it still wouldn't do anything, its a limit for the sake of there being a limit. The only reason why it was 12 unit in 1998 was due to engine limitation.
and to your edit. Because marines already have the range upgrade
No one is denying that. Just because the limit isn't needed because of the lack of technology any longer doesn't mean that it isn't needed for other reasons.
Saying that there shouldn't be a limit just because the technology isn't limiting us to it any longer is just stupid.
On July 02 2012 23:17 Rabiator wrote:EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
I think marines are about the only unit that doesn't qualify as a deathball. It sure is scary as hell - but unlike for example a collossus ball - it can be effectively destroyed with AoE (banes, fungal, collossi, storm, tanks). That's why you see bio terrans spreading their army out in large concaves and try to split the enemy army with multi-pronged attacks - because their bio-centered army is so vulnerable as one big blob.
On July 02 2012 00:52 Archerofaiur wrote: The Deathball. It is a phenomenon that has come to define almost every game of Starcraft 2. Huge armies grouped together that move together until one big battle that determines the game. The problem primarily arose out of changes to the UI, both improved pathing and unlimited unit selection. As we learn more about Heart of the Swarm it becomes clear that the developers are focused on breaking up the death ball.
I fully agree with you on the problem which the Deathball causes, BUT your (and possibly Blizzards) conclusion is totally false. The real way to "nerf the Deathball" would be to nerf the mechanics which made it possible ... i.e. the unlimited unit selection, but much more the perfect movement AI. In addition to this the macroing capabilities need to be reduced.
I think a certain consideration of whats realistic is necessarily in this debate. Changing unlimited unit selection, pathing and unit radius changes everything about SC2 magnitudes more than even the balance upset that HOTS will bring.
On July 02 2012 23:17 Rabiator wrote:EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
I think marines are about the only unit that doesn't qualify as a deathball. It sure is scary as hell - but unlike for example a collossus ball - it can be effectively destroyed with AoE (banes, fungal, collossi, storm, tanks). That's why you see bio terrans spreading their army out in large concaves and try to split the enemy army with multi-pronged attacks - because their bio-centered army is so vulnerable as one big blob.
This is at least partly correct and highlights what needs to change. Marines have become the default deathball unit for terran because they're so strong and everything else has been nerfed to compensate for that. This means terran struggles is deathball play, because their deathballs can be severely dented by a limited number of AOE units.
Think about how just a couple burrowed banelings combined with some infestors, or just a few storms, or some high ground siege tanks can cripple a terran bio attack without committing much supply to it. This is how it should be for ALL races. If all deathballs could be held up with a small number of units, then it would constrict DB play.
A few siege tanks with thor backup can conceivably hold off a "deathball" of zerg lair tech, but once brood lords come into play it's really difficult to hold that off supply effectively, so you have to group your whole army. Protoss deathball meanwhile laugh at anything that isn't nearly equal in supply. This is what has to fundamentally change.
It's nice to see that many people are having this discussion, as I think it would have been the perfect opportunity for Blizzard to make core design decisions for HotS. Sadly it is probably too late. But if we're talking about the deathball, then I think that there are other things which promote the Deathball style other than the no limit in unit selection and clumping.
In my opinion, the races which exhibit the Deathball style the most are Zerg and Protoss. For instance, the warpgate mechanic makes all Protoss gateway units very weak before they get upgrades (blink/charge, etc...). Protoss essentially has to turtle until it has established a decent economy and has access to its AOE units. There is no incentive for the Protoss to do anything else than turtle, unless they want to allin, because gateway units will die very easily to stimmed bio or ling/roach.
Just to say that there are a lot more things involved in why we see the deathball than how the game engine was designed. At this point, I'm waiting to see whether Blizzard will have the balls to make drastic design changes for Legacy of the Void, the last expansion, to make the game more fun to play and to watch than it is at the moment. But fortunately for Blizzard, there isn't that much competition in the RTS market, so I'm not very hopeful
As I see it their are many suggestions proposed in this thread and they fall into three categories
Things the community can change Things Blizzard can and may be willing to change Things that would require a rework of the engine
More Open Maps Fewer Resources per Base Increased AOE Defenders Advantage/Board Control Increased Unit Formation Increased Unit Radius Limited Unit Selection
On July 02 2012 23:17 Rabiator wrote: EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
Eh, BW Marines had range 4 (5 with the upgrade), while SC2 Marines have range 5 from the start. Also, the Combat Shields upgrade may have been a replacement for the range upgrade. But then again, it's hard to compare BW ranges to SC2 ranges due to engine differences.
Things the community can change Things Blizzard can and may be willing to change Things that would require a rework of the engine
More Open Maps Fewer Resources per Base Increased AOE Defenders Advantage/Board Control Increased Unit Formation Increased Unit Radius Limited Unit Selection
All I think they really need to do is make units clump up more loosely when box moving. There's no need to mess with pathing AI, just have the units be farther apart. I don't think having a few raiders separate from the ball is the answer. It just makes the ball smaller, it doesn't do much to break it up.
Reducing unit range is a great idea too. I hadn't thought of it since the ranged were rather similar. But with tighter units a side effect is more rows in range at once.
So, -Increase collision size -Reduce range -Remove Colossus
God the tempest is fucking shit. That quote in the OP on the design of the Tempest makes me cringe. It's insulting that the Carrier is removed for this thing. Just put a god damn corsair-like unit in the game in replace of the Phoenix and keep the Carrier. Christ.
Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
On July 03 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
But I'm calling it, Blizzard will not change it.
So the choice is strive for the solutions you cant have. Or the ones you can.
The deathball "problem" is kind of overblown, and really is only one way to play the game that has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I think we should be thankful that we can play a blob style if we want; for some people it's easier and can be quite effective, while you can also play a more spread out harassing style and be an effective player as well. BW's pathing was a pain in the ass and made the game more mechanically difficult for a lot of players, and it became less about strategy and more about how fast you can move your hands which is kind of against the point of an RTS
On July 03 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
But I'm calling it, Blizzard will not change it.
So the choice is strive for the solutions you cant have. Or the ones you can.
Well if a significant and important part of the community would "gather with pitchforks outside Blizzard HQ" or if certain spokespersons would tell them that they are doing bad things they might consider listening to them. I mean if a bunch of pro players from many teams and a bunch of analytical casters could be made to agree on the blatantly obvious problems of SC2 and would tell that to Blizzard they would be forced to listen or lose yet another bit of credibility.
The core of the problem IMO is the perfect unit movement, the unlimited unit selection and the macroing capabilities of all three races. This sums up to having engagements of "maximum available army" vs "yet another maximum available army" and only very rarely do we have engagements at multiple fronts. The problem of the Deathball goes much deeper IMO because it also makes balancing unnecessarily hard. Example: If you have a Siege Tank capable of oneshotting Zerglings and twoshotting Roaches they are ridiculously powerful, but only if you have 20 Roaches inside the targeting area. For SC2 this has been solved by nerfing both damage and radius ... which has made the unit much less powerful and forces the Terran to use many more of them in an area to get some measure of safety. This also means that he cant have some tanks back home for defense ... The same is true for High Templars, which could be kept at home for drop defense ... if Psi Storm hadnt been nerfed.
And now they plan on introducing more units which make Siege Tanks useless and call it "buffing mech" ... thats some strange logic IMO.
On July 03 2012 02:24 tehemperorer wrote: The deathball "problem" is kind of overblown, and really is only one way to play the game that has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I think we should be thankful that we can play a blob style if we want; for some people it's easier and can be quite effective, while you can also play a more spread out harassing style and be an effective player as well. BW's pathing was a pain in the ass and made the game more mechanically difficult for a lot of players, and it became less about strategy and more about how fast you can move your hands which is kind of against the point of an RTS
BW isn't less about strategy at all on the highest level. The mechanics just seperated the best players from the average/good players which is really good because that's what's needed. There needs to be something that allows you to keep a consistency by purely being better than your opponent. You can still get caught off guard by tactics by worse players but not amazingly worse which can still happen in sc2.
On July 02 2012 01:13 Snoodles wrote: I think instead of focusing on units to break up deathballs they should focus on maps. The less minerals/gas per expansion is idea is best IMO. Make it easy to take up FRAGILE bases all over the map, and watch players skirmish with handfuls of units all over the map. Right now the "community" keeps giving blizzard shit for the maps they make, yet only support maps that let you too safely make three bases, and now four that are easily secured from harassment. "Oh noes. Rocks. Veto. Oh noes, it's too hard to take a 4th on antiga, veto" I think the small 4th base on daybreak is more of what we need to see.
although this works in bw, due to macro mechanics wouldnt this make things very hard for terran? your bases mine out suuper fast and you are mineral heavy, so you hvae to spread yourself out as much as a zerg,but also need to play in a way that lends yourself week to counterattacks (aggression)
The best solution is in fact adding an option that let the units move in their original formation, but with different speed. So if you spread out your units in advance, then move them, you will have a very spread out army. This will decrease the damage of AOE, but it also reduces the DPS density of the range units, and increase the melee surface of the melee units. It's not like some naive observations "oh! we need to buff AOE then!".
In sum If let units move in their original formation: 1. AOE damage decreases 2. Range DPS Density decreases 3. Melee damage increases
The balance issue will be not as bad as many believed.
On July 02 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. 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.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
Totally agree with everything you just said. They need to make the deathball clumsy and ineffective in order to really erase the problem. Having collosi be amazing with supporting units and horrible by themselves is almost the opposite of what you really want.
What they need to do is make the most powerful units in the game require tremendous skill and execution to use. You kind of see this with the tank having to unsiege relocate siege unsiege ect. Basically they need to buff aoe damage but also make aoe units more difficult to use. I think this would make the deathball a less attractive option.
On July 03 2012 02:56 larse wrote: The best solution is in fact adding an option that let the units move in their original formation, but with different speed. So if you spread out your units in advance, then move them, you will have a very spread out army. This will decrease the damage of AOE, but it also reduces the DPS density of the range units, and increase the melee surface of the melee units. It's not like some naive observations "oh! we need to buff AOE then!".
In sum If let units move in their original formation: 1. AOE damage decreases 2. Range DPS Density decreases 3. Melee damage increases
The balance issue will be not as bad as many believed.
Not quite sure why you call it naive observations.
If we just add a spread which could make AOE useless it would just be a case of armies a moving into each other with no need to micro out of aoe spells and stuff.
AOE should be OP, it should melt units in seconds, it should work like storm does vs marines at the moment.
On July 03 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
But I'm calling it, Blizzard will not change it.
So the choice is strive for the solutions you cant have. Or the ones you can.
Well if a significant and important part of the community would "gather with pitchforks outside Blizzard HQ" or if certain spokespersons would tell them that they are doing bad things they might consider listening to them. I mean if a bunch of pro players from many teams and a bunch of analytical casters could be made to agree on the blatantly obvious problems of SC2 and would tell that to Blizzard they would be forced to listen or lose yet another bit of credibility.
History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
On July 03 2012 03:07 Archerofaiur wrote: History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
I don't think changing one simple value in the editor and buffing splash accordingly counts as redesigning the game from ground up. Rather a minor adjustment.
On July 03 2012 02:56 larse wrote: The best solution is in fact adding an option that let the units move in their original formation, but with different speed. So if you spread out your units in advance, then move them, you will have a very spread out army. This will decrease the damage of AOE, but it also reduces the DPS density of the range units, and increase the melee surface of the melee units. It's not like some naive observations "oh! we need to buff AOE then!".
In sum If let units move in their original formation: 1. AOE damage decreases 2. Range DPS Density decreases 3. Melee damage increases
The balance issue will be not as bad as many believed.
Not quite sure why you call it naive observations.
If we just add a spread which could make AOE useless it would just be a case of armies a moving into each other with no need to micro out of aoe spells and stuff.
AOE should be OP, it should melt units in seconds, it should work like storm does vs marines at the moment.
What I mean naive is that people only observed that the consequence of non-deathball mechanics is a less effective AOE, but overlook the impact on range DPS density and melee surface area.
Aren't some of the early available spells and passives another factor that lead into deathballs?
For example a Force Field, if it traps the enemy's units correctly makes him lose most of his army, therefore most players avoid applying early pressure, but rather go all-in or just sit and wait for a bigger army. Same thing with Concussive Shells, which disencourages the Protoss to just apply some mild pressure on the Terran (like the 1-2 Dragoons in BW, forcing the Terran to constantly repair his bunker until siege tanks are out). So instead of risking to lose most of your units on the retreat, again, people rather sit and wait for their good ol' deathball. To some extend, the new Queen buff also reduced the possibilities of pressuring.
If early pressure was encouraged, or let's say more frequent engagements were encouraged (I don't know how, since Protosses would die without Force Fields and the game is balanced around that and around Concussive Shells) players could "cripple" themselves more early to mid, without killing each other and therefore reduce the size of the deathball significantly.
On July 03 2012 03:07 Archerofaiur wrote: History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
I don't think changing one simple value in the editor and buffing splash accordingly counts as redesigning the game from ground up. Rather a minor adjustment.
But that one variable would affect just about every match-up, counter and unit in the game.
On July 03 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
But I'm calling it, Blizzard will not change it.
So the choice is strive for the solutions you cant have. Or the ones you can.
Well if a significant and important part of the community would "gather with pitchforks outside Blizzard HQ" or if certain spokespersons would tell them that they are doing bad things they might consider listening to them. I mean if a bunch of pro players from many teams and a bunch of analytical casters could be made to agree on the blatantly obvious problems of SC2 and would tell that to Blizzard they would be forced to listen or lose yet another bit of credibility.
History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
Community solutions wont work since Blizzard is keeping the lid on the competitive laddering scene which defines what SC2 as an eSport looks like, BUT if Blizzard does huge changes to the game themselves - like removing the Carrier entirely - they could just as well change their macro mechanics and movement AI and unit selection. The game has to be totally rebalanced in any case and toning down MULE, Chronoboost and Inject Larva as well as adding dynamic unit movement and limiting the number of units in a control group should be doable by changing a few variables in the code, i.e. within 30 minutes. HotS is a "whole new game" from the balancing standpoint; just look at the value of the Siege Tank for example ... it is a useless heap of scrap metal with all the Vipers and Tempests now.
There wasnt any "pitchfork movement" for MBS and LAN ... not really. Such a movement starts at Blizzcon (or wherever lead designers show their faces) with some rotten eggs and tomatoes en masse ... protests on forums are largely ignored.
On July 03 2012 02:24 tehemperorer wrote: The deathball "problem" is kind of overblown, and really is only one way to play the game that has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I think we should be thankful that we can play a blob style if we want; for some people it's easier and can be quite effective, while you can also play a more spread out harassing style and be an effective player as well. BW's pathing was a pain in the ass and made the game more mechanically difficult for a lot of players, and it became less about strategy and more about how fast you can move your hands which is kind of against the point of an RTS
BW isn't less about strategy at all on the highest level. The mechanics just seperated the best players from the average/good players which is really good because that's what's needed. There needs to be something that allows you to keep a consistency by purely being better than your opponent. You can still get caught off guard by tactics by worse players but not amazingly worse which can still happen in sc2.
The point is (to which you attest) that from an average/good level all the way to the top it is about mechanics more than strategy in BW. We're into opinions here, but an RTS should be about strategy more than a minimum skill threshold that must be passed before being able to play the game decently. This idea is excused for BW because BW was developed under a certain level of technological restrictions and was lucky enough to gain traction beyond it's normal lifecycle, but for newer RTS's, mechanics that are base and simple should be managed by the platform and not by the player. SC2 achieves this.
My problem is most of the opinion in this thread seems to be based off of nostalgia and not what fundamentally makes an RTS. When SC1 came out I was excited for it but quickly found that it wasn't primarily about strategy when compared to the other games that were available at around the same time, like CnC and Dune. Again, you can argue this because it's a declaration of my opinion but I don't think you can argue that CnC and Total Annihilation were more mechanically challenging than SC:BW, and that's the point: don't add mechanical challenges to an RTS title that aren't necessary. If getting more spectators for the eSport is the goal, how are you going to explain arbitrary limitations on SC2 gameplay to someone if they had no idea what SC:BW was like? I thought selecting 12 units max in BW was extremely lame, since at the same time you could select however many you wanted in CnC. Try explaining that to a new spectator who is used to norms from today's gaming environment.
I still think that the most simple thing for all of this would be to add a tournament mode which would have its seperate ladder and you could also change to tournament settings in custom games and the tournament settings would be specific balance changes and mechanics changes. This way they could still keep the exact game that they've got right now and just add another option for the less casual players.
On July 02 2012 23:17 Rabiator wrote:EDIT: Here is a question for all those who think the Deathball isnt that bad: Why do you think there is no range upgrade for Marines anymore (which they had in BW)? Simple answer: It would be totally OP in a tight ball of death because Marines is a really small unit.
I think marines are about the only unit that doesn't qualify as a deathball. It sure is scary as hell - but unlike for example a collossus ball - it can be effectively destroyed with AoE (banes, fungal, collossi, storm, tanks). That's why you see bio terrans spreading their army out in large concaves and try to split the enemy army with multi-pronged attacks - because their bio-centered army is so vulnerable as one big blob.
This is at least partly correct and highlights what needs to change. Marines have become the default deathball unit for terran because they're so strong and everything else has been nerfed to compensate for that. This means terran struggles is deathball play, because their deathballs can be severely dented by a limited number of AOE units.
Think about how just a couple burrowed banelings combined with some infestors, or just a few storms, or some high ground siege tanks can cripple a terran bio attack without committing much supply to it. This is how it should be for ALL races. If all deathballs could be held up with a small number of units, then it would constrict DB play.
A few siege tanks with thor backup can conceivably hold off a "deathball" of zerg lair tech, but once brood lords come into play it's really difficult to hold that off supply effectively, so you have to group your whole army. Protoss deathball meanwhile laugh at anything that isn't nearly equal in supply. This is what has to fundamentally change.
This is the most intelligent thing i've read here.
There needs to be a risk/reward factor in clumping units up into a deathball. You should always have to consider whether the gain in damage dealing in a specific area (more things firing at one spot at once) is worth the risk of crippling or losing your army.
The death ball isnt a bad thing and it can work but the deathball in SC2 require so little control or thinking and it just a big 1-A. That the reason why it a big problem. In sc1, there is a death ball too but it require alot more control and thinking. An example would be mech in TvP, the terran has to control tanks and place them nicely and be very methodical about it. In SC2.....an example would be TvP where protoss just A-move their collosus ball into you and it game over. They can cast FF and Psy-storm but it just not that difficult because smart casting is just part of the game. It reqiure very little placement or anything since smart casting is just part of the game. I think this is why blizzard buff warp prism hoping to see more of it usage and it did! just not to the extent they would like and I would love for storm drop to be used more to break the death ball up.
If the death ball would reqiure more micro, then I think it perfectly fine to have death ball. But at the current stage of the game and how starcraft unit are, it just simply not possible. I am afraid with the new unit introduced in HOTS how the new terran mech will work is going to probably be the same as the toss ball where they just a-move :/
On July 03 2012 04:39 tehemperorer wrote: My problem is most of the opinion in this thread seems to be based off of nostalgia and not what fundamentally makes an RTS. When SC1 came out I was excited for it but quickly found that it wasn't primarily about strategy when compared to the other games that were available at around the same time, like CnC and Dune. Again, you can argue this because it's a declaration of my opinion but I don't think you can argue that CnC and Total Annihilation were more mechanically challenging than SC:BW, and that's the point: don't add mechanical challenges to an RTS title that aren't necessary. If getting more spectators for the eSport is the goal, how are you going to explain arbitrary limitations on SC2 gameplay to someone if they had no idea what SC:BW was like? I thought selecting 12 units max in BW was extremely lame, since at the same time you could select however many you wanted in CnC. Try explaining that to a new spectator who is used to norms from today's gaming environment.
It's not all about it being impressive for the spectators. It would help with keeping a consistency among the top players, the #1 pro wouldn't be losing to the #300 pro every week here and there and to the game itself, I think it helps making the game more enjoyable to watch since the styles that are used and the way games are played out with only being able to move 12 units at a time is more fun and exciting and looks better to the eye than how it is currently.
Of course the people that have tried to game and know how difficult it is would be even more impressed but that's not the main point.
On July 03 2012 03:07 Archerofaiur wrote: History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
I don't think changing one simple value in the editor and buffing splash accordingly counts as redesigning the game from ground up. Rather a minor adjustment.
But that one variable would affect just about every match-up, counter and unit in the game.
On July 03 2012 03:07 Archerofaiur wrote: History is the best predictor of the future. Just look at previous "pitchfork movements" such as MBS and LAN.
The best you get from this, if you gather the community around this issue is a community solution like macro mechanics or load game from replay. Asking a company to completely redesign a game from ground up for an expansion is about as fruitful as asking your dog for more money.
I don't think changing one simple value in the editor and buffing splash accordingly counts as redesigning the game from ground up. Rather a minor adjustment.
But that one variable would affect just about every match-up, counter and unit in the game.
Yes, that's the point.
But thats not even necessarily. All that may be needed is to change the pathing/unit radius of a few select units. For example what would protoss deathballs look like if stalkers spaced out more? And changes to one units movement is something Blizzard has shown it is willing to do. Remember when the phoenix received the ability to move and shoot? Completely changed the match up.
On July 03 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Good pathing is a pretext. Dustin Browder always said that "oh we have deathball because we have good pathing. We will never sacrifice good pathing". It's simply a pretext. There are tons of other solutions. This thread has so many solutions that can actually solve the deathball problem: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
But I'm calling it, Blizzard will not change it.
So the choice is strive for the solutions you cant have. Or the ones you can.
Well if a significant and important part of the community would "gather with pitchforks outside Blizzard HQ" or if certain spokespersons would tell them that they are doing bad things they might consider listening to them. I mean if a bunch of pro players from many teams and a bunch of analytical casters could be made to agree on the blatantly obvious problems of SC2 and would tell that to Blizzard they would be forced to listen or lose yet another bit of credibility.
The core of the problem IMO is the perfect unit movement, the unlimited unit selection and the macroing capabilities of all three races. This sums up to having engagements of "maximum available army" vs "yet another maximum available army" and only very rarely do we have engagements at multiple fronts. The problem of the Deathball goes much deeper IMO because it also makes balancing unnecessarily hard. Example: If you have a Siege Tank capable of oneshotting Zerglings and twoshotting Roaches they are ridiculously powerful, but only if you have 20 Roaches inside the targeting area. For SC2 this has been solved by nerfing both damage and radius ... which has made the unit much less powerful and forces the Terran to use many more of them in an area to get some measure of safety. This also means that he cant have some tanks back home for defense ... The same is true for High Templars, which could be kept at home for drop defense ... if Psi Storm hadnt been nerfed.
And now they plan on introducing more units which make Siege Tanks useless and call it "buffing mech" ... thats some strange logic IMO.
templars can still be left at home for defense, in fact you have to leave them behind for defense, since the amulet was removed. It used to be that you didn't even have to leave anything home for defense, and you just warp in a storm or two... that was what you call a retarded mechanic.
The problem of the Death Ball can be solved with two deisgn philosophies:
1. Amazing AOE spells/Abilities: If AOE in the game is absolutely game breakingly good, then clumping your units will result in units being inefficeint. However, if AOE becomes too good, then its either an incredible harass tool or just not fun to play with or against.
Spells like Psy Storm and Fungal for example. Storm you can atealst move out of, HTs are super slow, and sufficiently far along the tech path. Fungal on the other hand, has to be pre-spread and is not Hive tech, AND infestors can burrow. Therefore, when Fungal is really good, its plain boring to play against. Storm on the other hand atleast allows for some wiggle room.
But what about a more interesting mechanics... Say something like Zerg Tremor, which is a target AOE spell that causes the ground to shake where each unit that gets hit radiates their own mini Tremor. Hit a ball of units, and they all die as they shockwave each other, hit one unit you do low base dmg. Or take the Collosus, and change it to sweep in a larger X formation with the ability for it to either A move OR target the ground where the X would converge.
I just gave the Collosus so much more potential to control space and dettered against pure deathball with a Zerg spin on the Storm.
2. Units which are Better Alone:
Blizzard has toyed with the idea, but in the wrong way. Instead of giving the unit a fundamental mechanic which makes it amazing alone, why not just give it sufficient "micro-ability" which makes it unique by itself. The issue here is the potential to add yet another unit to the death-ball.
You could change two things about the Stalker, make it fire in 360 degress and lengthen the animation to benefit from stutter stepping, which combined with blink would make the unit quite micro intensive, which when put in a sentry-Collossus death-ball is significantly worse as you can't benefit from its own unique micro properties while micro other stuff (you now have to forcefield, micro the collossus, and then blink/stutter the stalkers, well gl).
i was watching proleague last night (sc:bw) and i was thinking that the reason sc2 is so deathballish is because of the maps. they encourage deathball type play because its so hard to effectively harass/attack multiple places at once. maybe we need larger maps. the trend seems to be smaller maps with few access points, which makes the games deathball battles.
On July 03 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote: i was watching proleague last night (sc:bw) and i was thinking that the reason sc2 is so deathballish is because of the maps. they encourage deathball type play because its so hard to effectively harass/attack multiple places at once. maybe we need larger maps. the trend seems to be smaller maps with few access points, which makes the games deathball battles.
The maps are not the issue any longer, people thought so and maps got larger and it helped a bit but not enough, making them even larger is not the way to go.
Also if I'm not wrong the sc2 maps already are as big or even bigger than the largest bw maps? It's just the engine, pathing, speed and everything else that makes them seem smaller.
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
That is because of the map pool. If there was a map that had a wide open natural that was difficult to Forge fast expand on, and yet had no easy to take third for Zerg (and didn't have an easy to take 3rd for Toss like Shattered Temple) we would actually see some action in the first few minutes.
Instead we get maps with easy to take bases and no action.
:/ I guess the irony here is that what you describe is exactly what we USED to have. Yet everyone complained about 1 base allins and no macro games and here we are now.
I think the proposal in this thread should be the main solution to breaking up the death ball.
Read page 10 in this thread / watch the video. Profit.
If so many ppl think its the solution just try it and play some real games and record/commentate them, hasn't been done so far and everyone would profit.
Things the community can change Things Blizzard can and may be willing to change Things that would require a rework of the engine
More Open Maps Fewer Resources per Base Increased AOE Defenders Advantage/Board Control Increased Unit Formation Increased Unit Radius Limited Unit Selection
How can you assert that unit radii and spacing is an engine change, when we already have evidence that it can be done in the editor just by tweaking variables? Unit variables are not part of the engine, the engine is just the mechanism for processing them.
Additionally, your assertion that better spacing will require some exponentially larger balance effort than Blizzard will already have to deal with has no basis in reality, it's just an excuse. The beta's going to last a while anyway, and Blizzard will have plenty of time to re-balance what little splash there is in the game.
On July 03 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote: i was watching proleague last night (sc:bw) and i was thinking that the reason sc2 is so deathballish is because of the maps. they encourage deathball type play because its so hard to effectively harass/attack multiple places at once. maybe we need larger maps. the trend seems to be smaller maps with few access points, which makes the games deathball battles.
The maps are not the issue any longer, people thought so and maps got larger and it helped a bit but not enough, making them even larger is not the way to go.
Also if I'm not wrong the sc2 maps already are as big or even bigger than the largest bw maps? It's just the engine, pathing, speed and everything else that makes them seem smaller.
Yes it did help, but the large maps had other flaws that led to their fading away. Larger maps are a big part of it.
And the fact that they still 'seem' smaller means that they still aren't the sweetspot size yet and need to grow more.
On July 03 2012 02:24 tehemperorer wrote: The deathball "problem" is kind of overblown, and really is only one way to play the game that has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I think we should be thankful that we can play a blob style if we want; for some people it's easier and can be quite effective, while you can also play a more spread out harassing style and be an effective player as well. BW's pathing was a pain in the ass and made the game more mechanically difficult for a lot of players, and it became less about strategy and more about how fast you can move your hands which is kind of against the point of an RTS
BW isn't less about strategy at all on the highest level. The mechanics just seperated the best players from the average/good players which is really good because that's what's needed. There needs to be something that allows you to keep a consistency by purely being better than your opponent. You can still get caught off guard by tactics by worse players but not amazingly worse which can still happen in sc2.
The point is (to which you attest) that from an average/good level all the way to the top it is about mechanics more than strategy in BW. We're into opinions here, but an RTS should be about strategy more than a minimum skill threshold that must be passed before being able to play the game decently. This idea is excused for BW because BW was developed under a certain level of technological restrictions and was lucky enough to gain traction beyond it's normal lifecycle, but for newer RTS's, mechanics that are base and simple should be managed by the platform and not by the player. SC2 achieves this.
My problem is most of the opinion in this thread seems to be based off of nostalgia and not what fundamentally makes an RTS. When SC1 came out I was excited for it but quickly found that it wasn't primarily about strategy when compared to the other games that were available at around the same time, like CnC and Dune. Again, you can argue this because it's a declaration of my opinion but I don't think you can argue that CnC and Total Annihilation were more mechanically challenging than SC:BW, and that's the point: don't add mechanical challenges to an RTS title that aren't necessary. If getting more spectators for the eSport is the goal, how are you going to explain arbitrary limitations on SC2 gameplay to someone if they had no idea what SC:BW was like? I thought selecting 12 units max in BW was extremely lame, since at the same time you could select however many you wanted in CnC. Try explaining that to a new spectator who is used to norms from today's gaming environment.
While I don't disagree that BW has some mechanics in there which probably won't be viable in this day and age. You have to realise that single building selection, 12 unit selection, manual mining were design decisions. There were RTS's around that period that had unlimited unit selection, MBS and automine. You even can make SCV's "automine" after building with shift-click. Even Red Alert had "automine". That said, most people are probably right in saying that these design decisions may not be viable in this day an age.
However just because BW has high mechanical difficulty does not take away from strategy, I'd say it increases it. Which is why the TBLS all play completely differently. Arguably SC2 actually has a higher apm requirement, the top SC2 players have higher avg apm than some of the best BW players. Savior and Stork both had very very low apm, in the low 200's, yet they were both part of the most consistent players in history. Even the term Bonjwa was initially inscribed onto Savior.
I have played both games at a reasonably high level, I feel that BW actually rewards strategy more than SC2. SC2 requires a much more all rounded skillset, good tactical decision making and reactionary play.
When I play BW I am thinking on a much more strategic level (my overall gameplan, positioning of buildings and units, areas to lock down, expansion timings, build branches). In SC2 I am thinking on a much more tactical level (my army composition, where and how to engage, drops, maximising opportunities, etc). Of course tactical and strategic elements are shared amongst both games, but I think the emphasis on strategy actually belongs to BW and not SC2.
On July 03 2012 12:40 sluggaslamoo wrote: That said, most people are probably right in saying that these design decisions may not be viable in this day an age.
Would you care to explain why it is better to have unlimited unit selection compared to limited unit selection?
There is this misconception nowadays that "more = better", but that isnt true. Having more units on the screen (and clumping them up with Blizzards movement AI) simply creates a fuzzy mass of units which are hard to distinguish sometimes. This is rather true for ZvZ battles where two Roach armies meet up. Sure you can see what is happening and the concaves will be forming, but it is boring to watch. You can have the same awesomeness in a battle with half the number of units and might even get some "hero units" (like the last Marine standing after an assault of Zerglings) which you could "care about" (well until he dies next battle).
On July 03 2012 12:40 sluggaslamoo wrote: When I play BW I am thinking on a much more strategic level (my overall gameplan, positioning of buildings and units, areas to lock down, expansion timings, build branches). In SC2 I am thinking on a much more tactical level (my army composition, where and how to engage, drops, maximising opportunities, etc). Of course tactical and strategic elements are shared amongst both games, but I think the emphasis on strategy actually belongs to BW and not SC2.
It is really sad to say that SC2 has lost the "strategy" part from RTS. Positioning really is only a minor part for a game where masses of units clash and the right composition is more important. I wish Blizzard would notice this and started to care. The current design of HotS units seems very anti-Siege-Tankish and that is the last unit which was important for a strategic positioning.
The Deathball is bad, boring to watch, requires zero skill and should be removed from the game. Whatever means necessars should be taken and increasing AoE damage and radius would be a good start. Once this is done and 2-4 Siege Tanks are enough to defend a position against a swarm of Zerglings I would consider the Viper (and all the other HotS units) a fair and acceptable unit. As it is now it is redundant since the Zerg can easily swarm the Terran army anyways and then rebuild everything before they even have a chance to get back to a decent supply of Tanks.
On July 03 2012 12:40 sluggaslamoo wrote: That said, most people are probably right in saying that these design decisions may not be viable in this day an age.
Would you care to explain why it is better to have unlimited unit selection compared to limited unit selection?
There is this misconception nowadays that "more = better", but that isnt true. Having more units on the screen (and clumping them up with Blizzards movement AI) simply creates a fuzzy mass of units which are hard to distinguish sometimes. This is rather true for ZvZ battles where two Roach armies meet up. Sure you can see what is happening and the concaves will be forming, but it is boring to watch. You can have the same awesomeness in a battle with half the number of units and might even get some "hero units" (like the last Marine standing after an assault of Zerglings) which you could "care about" (well until he dies next battle).
The unlimited unit selection isn't the problem, though.
Anyone who's seen unlimited selection hacks from BW can tell you that they still don't bunch up like they do in SC2. The real reason why units bunch up so much is that Blizzard changed the movement AI so they naturally bunch up, and unlike other modern RTS games, we don't have formation buttons to automatically spread them back out.
On July 03 2012 13:51 Rabiator wrote: The Deathball is bad, boring to watch, requires zero skill and should be removed from the game. Whatever means necessars should be taken and increasing AoE damage and radius would be a good start. Once this is done and 2-4 Siege Tanks are enough to defend a position against a swarm of Zerglings I would consider the Viper (and all the other HotS units) a fair and acceptable unit. As it is now it is redundant since the Zerg can easily swarm the Terran army anyways and then rebuild everything before they even have a chance to get back to a decent supply of Tanks.
All we need is to remove the auto-clumping unit variables and bring back wider AoEs (unnerfed storm, unnerfed siege tanks, lurkers instead of banes, etc). That way, units won't clump automatically and players won't have an incentive to clump manually either.
Making small control groups would not matter at all, that's just dumb.
What makes deathball a deathball is this: 21:53 - 2 Deathballs meet, they carefully position before engaging 21:59 - 2 Deathballs start fighting 22:05 - The fight is over and one of the Deathballs won (this is also in-game seconds, I just off-raced with Protoss and won against a Zerg by Archon toileting)
If you take a look at BW videos and gameplay, it feels like a war is going on, multiple fronts, attacks from every direction (most games I have seen is that players have around 100-150 supply at 20min mark, while in SC2, that would be considered as very horrible macro, simply because of Skirmishes). Currently, in SC2, it feels like 2 sides with access to Nukes meet (real world scenario), each of them launch 30 of them and the fight + the game is over.
I gladly invoke the idea of skrimishes in the early and mid game, without it being cheese or an allin, currently, neither side can do that aside from Terran drops (which can get shut down with a few Mutalisks/Feedback/Blink Stalkers). There is zero to nothing other races can do to attack the other race with their ground army without losing more. I am a Zerg player and I absolutely hate the fact that I have to get Brood Lords in order to win a game that has transitioned into late game (Ultralisks are just god horrible, we all know that), or that I have to rush to Brood Lords while spending as little resources on my Tier 1 army as I can, I hate the units, they feel like beefy bouncers who you do not want to mess with (day9 just did a daily where the Terran player avoided Brood Lords the ENTIRE game and won by slowly chopping down the Zerg bases, he only engaged the Brood Lords when the Zerg had 1 Extractor only and he had shitton of Vikings).
Like already said, the fights are too fast and units die too quickly. Have you ever encountered a Mech Terran who pushes out with 5-6 Thors, 10-12 Hellions and 15-17 Siege Tanks? Try attacking into that if you do not have Brood Lords (everything you have evaporates as if you sent 50 puppies instead of some beefy Roaches).
This is not a QQ post, I was just argumenting the fact that battles just end way too fast. Also, someone up there mentioned the option of retreat, I would really love if I could come in, do some damage and get the hell out of there (the only way you can do that now is Terran Drops and Mutalisks).
Remember like, a year ago when somebody suggested that 'dynamic movement' be added in to make unit paths/movement more distinguishable, as well as to reduce the death ball scenarios? That would've been nice in HotS.
And to add to the deathball hatred, not only is it god-awfully boring to watch, it also means some units can't even get in range to do damage because they're all balled up. It's depressing to see any Protoss player, even super high level ones to have a big T1/1.5 ball with zealots in it, and they can't even do anything because they're control-grouped to the mass of stalkers and sentries and just end up malingering in the back lines doing absolutely nothing. Though I haven't followed the BW pro scene much at all, I remember vods that involved controlling every unit in a control group or a skirmish meticulously.. Bisu vs. Flash spider mines comes to mind. THAT is great to watch.
I think another good idea would be to make animation cancelling/"stutter-step" micro to be more difficult. There are very few units that have long attack animations in SC2. I don't even think there are any that are difficult to animation cancel. In DotA, tons of heroes had absolutely terrible animations and it took some skill to cancel them properly, be it for attacks or spells. The same rule applied for BW... for a LOT of units. I seriously think if Blizzard reworked some of the attack animations in SC2 it'd discourage the deathball a lot.
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?
First time reading this thread, but a 12 control group favors protoss so heavily:/. how is it fair that a zerg needs 1 control group for 6 food worth of zerglings? and a protoss can move 24 food worth of units off 1 control group. Lets not go back to the broodwar standard and make protoss the go to noob race.
On July 02 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. 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.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote: and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously).
Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB.
This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways.
I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball
The synergy between the broodlord and the infestor/corruptor makes the deathball. It's not laziness of control groups lol. Even if you could only hotkey 4 units in a control group you would still want to have a flock of broodlords with infestor/corruptor support just because how powerful it was. Guardians weren't a deathball because there were very easy and viable solutions on dealing with them. It actually has nothing to do with how you have your hotkey setup.
Honestly I think these two posts sum it up pretty well. IMO limited unit selection/unit spacing and pathfinding is just side stepping around the issue, and I don't think unintuitive design and AI is the correct answer.
It's all about the design of the units themselves. The reason you DO see terran split up their army with multi pronged attacks (and zerg roach drops to a certain extent) is the due to the cost effectiveness of these units in low numbers. You can change the unit spacing and limit unit selection all you want, but zergs are NEVER going to want to split up their death ball because corrupters, broods and infestors synergise so well the more you have of them. They are next to useless in small groups. Same goes with protoss; don't see small squads of units because individually each unit is pretty cost inefficient.
Personally I think the design philosophy of terran is best; having cost effective tier 1-2 units as the backbone of your army and higher tier units to support, as opposed to protoss where your tier 1-2 units are only there to protect your colossi.
I guess for protoss it comes down to warpgate, since you simply can't have tier 1-2 units with the same cost effectiveness as their terran/zerg counterparts because they can be warped in anywhere on the map. IMO the best idea to both enable gateway units to be stronger and yet keep the warpgate concept (I think it is a pretty cool/unique concept) is to only allow units to be warped in from warp prism, or possibly only pylons that must be upgraded.
It's all about the design of the units themselves. The reason you DO see terran split up their army with multi pronged attacks (and zerg roach drops to a certain extent) is the due to the cost effectiveness of these units in low numbers. You can change the unit spacing and limit unit selection all you want, but zergs are NEVER going to want to split up their death ball because corrupters, broods and infestors synergise so well the more you have of them. They are next to useless in small groups. Same goes with protoss; don't see small squads of units because individually each unit is pretty cost inefficient.
I guess for protoss it comes down to warpgate, since you simply can't have tier 1-2 units with the same cost effectiveness as their terran/zerg counterparts because they can be warped in anywhere on the map. IMO the best idea to both enable gateway units to be stronger and yet keep the warpgate concept (I think it is a pretty cool/unique concept) is to only allow units to be warped in from warp prism, or possibly only pylons that must be upgraded.
I'm currently constructing a blog post (it will be rather long, lol) detailing my thoughts about the current direction of HOTS and what I would personally change. All revolving around the issue of the deathball. I have a cool idea about the warpgate mechanic as well.
This issue really fucking interests me. And it is crucial to the game - which is why it makes me angry to see it sidestepped and treated trivially. I do hope that Blizzard actually reads the suggestions that we make.
Personally, I think that the problem here is primarily a unit issue, though pathing does play a role as well. The reason why I agree with you is the fact that though units clump up, the damage of high powered AOE units should be a natural deterrent to this, requiring players to spread their units apart in order to make them more effective. Left as it is, the current pathing engine would only require more skill from players in order to avoid having their armies destroyed by AOE (requires spreading of forces, damnit!).
The propbelm is not that you "want" a Deathball (you would want that in SC/BW too except when facing certain spells/abilitiys --> like in SC2 ). The problem is that it's WAY to easy to get one because everything fits so nice together whiteout any problems...
On July 03 2012 02:24 tehemperorer wrote: The deathball "problem" is kind of overblown, and really is only one way to play the game that has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I think we should be thankful that we can play a blob style if we want; for some people it's easier and can be quite effective, while you can also play a more spread out harassing style and be an effective player as well. BW's pathing was a pain in the ass and made the game more mechanically difficult for a lot of players, and it became less about strategy and more about how fast you can move your hands which is kind of against the point of an RTS
BW isn't less about strategy at all on the highest level. The mechanics just seperated the best players from the average/good players which is really good because that's what's needed. There needs to be something that allows you to keep a consistency by purely being better than your opponent. You can still get caught off guard by tactics by worse players but not amazingly worse which can still happen in sc2.
The point is (to which you attest) that from an average/good level all the way to the top it is about mechanics more than strategy in BW. We're into opinions here, but an RTS should be about strategy more than a minimum skill threshold that must be passed before being able to play the game decently. This idea is excused for BW because BW was developed under a certain level of technological restrictions and was lucky enough to gain traction beyond it's normal lifecycle, but for newer RTS's, mechanics that are base and simple should be managed by the platform and not by the player. SC2 achieves this.
My problem is most of the opinion in this thread seems to be based off of nostalgia and not what fundamentally makes an RTS. When SC1 came out I was excited for it but quickly found that it wasn't primarily about strategy when compared to the other games that were available at around the same time, like CnC and Dune. Again, you can argue this because it's a declaration of my opinion but I don't think you can argue that CnC and Total Annihilation were more mechanically challenging than SC:BW, and that's the point: don't add mechanical challenges to an RTS title that aren't necessary. If getting more spectators for the eSport is the goal, how are you going to explain arbitrary limitations on SC2 gameplay to someone if they had no idea what SC:BW was like? I thought selecting 12 units max in BW was extremely lame, since at the same time you could select however many you wanted in CnC. Try explaining that to a new spectator who is used to norms from today's gaming environment.
I disagree that this has anything to do with nostalgia rather than what makes a good RTS. SC really is the only RTS game that I've come across that makes a difference not only what you make, but how you handle your units. Oh sure there's games with cover mechanics and formation buttons you can press. But none that allowed you the refined control that BW had where micro-ing a group of vultures could just murder zerglings. Or well placed shots from reaver-shuttle will pick apart a base (even the splash had a directional element to it.) SC has always been about sacrificing automation in order to place more powerful options in the hands of the skilled players. Why did they add Muling, Chrono, and Inject if it was just about strategy? What is stim doing in a game that should be all about strategy and not this mechanical skill of separating marines or kiting units? Why does Jaedong so sorely miss the possibility of microing mutalisks? Why are we forced to click a button for the battlecruiser to fire it's most powerful gun? What is manual blink doing on stalkers when they should be smart enough to attack on their own. Why are there even spells in an RTS that you have to manually control?
These all require a certain level of mechanical skill.
Most RTS games have moved away from being able to control how your units behave. Rather they take control from the players and automate everything. "It's all about strategy." A lot of suggestions are looking to give power back to the player so you don't just control where a unit goes (pre-battle positioning), but how it goes. (Things like moving shot.)
Some things are not just technical limitations, some are actually design choices. I would argue that smart casting/ not smart casting and overkill/ no overkill tanks are all design choices. Again, why even have spells in a strategy game if we don't like mechanics and just want strategy? Plus things like expanding the magic box isn't making things worse, but adding more options- you can clump units or spread them out. Your choice. Whoever said we need a formation button, please no. Player control, not preset automation please. Automation creates a pre-ordained way of doing things and it's hard to expand beyond the set way. Player control, while harder provides greater flexibility. (But I'm not sure 12-24 unit selection would be at the top of any of my lists of things to add to SC2.)
the 12 limit unit selection could be made into some supply limit instead, for example 24 so that you could get either 12 zealots in a control group or 24 zerglings and it could possibly be modified so that you could still have a bit more of units with higher supply though you would generally still have less of those units.
And not in this thread but in many other threads I've seen people saying that removing MBS wouldn't work with warpgate but I think there's quite an easy fix for that too which would be that you have to go back to all of your gateways to "charge" them everytime you want to use them so you go back and charge all 10 of them and then you've got 10 warpins available still on the W button.
limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
red alert 1 did not have MBS or unlimited unit selection. red alert 2's intuitive UI, and engaging game play was what made red alert 2 stand out far more than red alert 1 or 3, or any other RTS in its time.
SC2 should not be going backward and completely alienate its playerbase. It needs to move forward in the stratgic department and gives new difficulties that pro players can invest in to better themselves.
Terran is a very well designed race (except for mech outside of tank, that needs to be overhauled and seriously changed). Protoss is worse offender in game that needs alot of changing, but it will be up to Blizzard to change that.
Zerg imo don't matter as much because they are the reactive race. By fixing protoss and terran, you fixes a huge portion of zerg problems in term of engagements and matchup. Though they could use more microable units
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
SC2 should not be going backward and completely alienate its playerbase. It needs to move forward in the stratgic department and gives new difficulties that pro players can invest in to better themselves.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
And just simply focusing on the strategic department is just bad, there needs to be something else too to seperate the best players from the other and the level of strategy is still just as high and higher even at the highest level no matter the more difficult mechanics.
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. Not to say the "tournament mode" is still going to alienate any younger would be pros since they have been playing ladder all this time and have to forfeit everything they learned once they try the "competitive mode".
[QUOTE]On July 03 2012 17:32 iky43210 wrote: [QUOTE]On July 03 2012 17:29 Darneck wrote: [QUOTE]On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
[/QUOTE] Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. Not to say the "tournament mode" is still going to alienate any younger would be pros since they have been playing ladder all this time and have to forfeit everything they learned because of a completely different mode.
You might as well just make a new game[/QUOTE] How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each.
And they would not have to forfeit everything, the core would still be there for them and they would just need to improve on the mechanics department mainly.
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. You might as well just make a new game
How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each
If the game engine is done, Blizzard can implement any random units they wanted without much effort. Anybody could actually with map editor. Hardest part about RTS is balancing and game design, those two would be very different as depending on the mode. For instance, larva would be extremely overpowered in a non-MBS environment and zerglings would be extremely weak
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. You might as well just make a new game
How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each
If the game engine is done, Blizzard can implement any random units they wanted without much effort. Hardest part about RTS is balancing. And game design between those two would have been different as well, cause for instance larva would be extremely overpowered in a non-MBS environment and zerglings would be extremely weak
It's not like any of these changes would require a change of the game engine, basically everything can be added already without any change to it which has already been shown in several different custom maps and modes.
Also suggested the unit limit selection being done somehow with supply instead of simply 12 units which could allow for 12 zealots or 24 zerglins etc
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. You might as well just make a new game
How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each
If the game engine is done, Blizzard can implement any random units they wanted without much effort. Hardest part about RTS is balancing. And game design between those two would have been different as well, cause for instance larva would be extremely overpowered in a non-MBS environment and zerglings would be extremely weak
It's not like any of these changes would require a change of the game engine, basically everything can be added already without any change to it which has already been shown in several different custom maps and modes.
Also suggested the unit limit selection being done somehow with supply instead of simply 12 units which could allow for 12 zealots or 24 zerglins etc
It's not as easy as you make it out to be. sc2 was internally tested for many months, and beta was tested for 6 months, yet the game still came out extremely imbalance and took many patches of fine tuning to get to where we are today. RTS balancing truly takes alot of effort and time that I don't think its festible trying to maintain two mode
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. You might as well just make a new game
How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each
If the game engine is done, Blizzard can implement any random units they wanted without much effort. Hardest part about RTS is balancing. And game design between those two would have been different as well, cause for instance larva would be extremely overpowered in a non-MBS environment and zerglings would be extremely weak
It's not like any of these changes would require a change of the game engine, basically everything can be added already without any change to it which has already been shown in several different custom maps and modes.
Also suggested the unit limit selection being done somehow with supply instead of simply 12 units which could allow for 12 zealots or 24 zerglins etc
It's not as easy as you make it out to be. sc2 was internally tested for many months, and beta was tested for 6 months, yet the game still came out extremely imbalance and took many patches of fine tuning to get to where we are today. RTS balancing truly takes alot of effort and time that I don't think its festible trying to maintain two mode
I don't think it's going to be easy at all but I definitely think it would be doable and the tournament mode would be greatly influenced by the pros, a lot more than it is today and it would be a lot easier for blizzard to balance the other mode when they could basically exclusively focus on balancing it for more casual play.
Once you get it right or even close to right there's nothing left that has to be done
On July 03 2012 16:29 Falling wrote: Some things are not just technical limitations, some are actually design choices. I would argue that smart casting/ not smart casting and overkill/ no overkill tanks are all design choices. Again, why even have spells in a strategy game if we don't like mechanics and just want strategy? Plus things like expanding the magic box isn't making things worse, but adding more options- you can clump units or spread them out. Your choice. Whoever said we need a formation button, please no. Player control, not preset automation please. Automation creates a pre-ordained way of doing things and it's hard to expand beyond the set way. Player control, while harder provides greater flexibility. (But I'm not sure 12-24 unit selection would be at the top of any of my lists of things to add to SC2.)
I didn't suggest we need a formation button. I merely pointed out that other RTS's which automatically clump your units also allow you to automatically unclump them (via spread formations).
Since we don't have formation buttons (nor should we), then units should not automatically clump the way they currently do in SC2.
I think that it would be really cool to see at least some maps with bases which only have 6 mineral patches and 1 gas. Don't know why this would be a problem. E.G. half of the map pool with these small bases and the other half with the big bases just to see what it will change.
To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
In order to break up the deathball the game has to reward small skrimishes, holding severral strategic positions on the map (a watchtower is not a strategic position, and if holding one position is enough, then a deathball can hold it), punish big clumps of units harder etc. Currently SC2 does very little of this, if anything at all.
You can keep talking about this and that to help deal with the issue, but it's not gonna change the fact that the way SC2 was designed, fighting one fight with one big ball of units is rewarded.
Don't like it? Go play Company of Heroes in wait for COH2 to be released
Well, CoH was absuredly imbalanced at the start (Americans were way too overpowered in the early/mid game), as so they were during the next couple of patches (don't know what's the balance like now), I don't think SC2 can be compared to CoH.
I agree on the fact that skirmishes need to be rewarded, I so want that, it is essential especially in the lower leagues. If "imma get a deathball and win" mentality can be overthrown, we would see a much much fun game. Whatever the fix might be, different maps, less resources at the bases, units not clumping up, although, I would NOT want to see limited control groups, as I, myself, use 4 to 6 different control groups for units, I can't imagine not being able to manouver my Zerglings around. Comparing BW to SC2 pathing is not good, as they are very, VERY different, especially in the design of the game.
Although, buffing AoE damage means even more efficient turtling, which is bad.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded.
Nope ... they exist because a) they are made possible by the movement AI (BW never had a ground deathball ... only flyers) AND b) there is no risk involved (pitiful AoE damage).
Bommes created a map called "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" on the EU server to test out how movement with a bigger magic box feels. his post Just search for it in custom games. I really like it.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
The way it is right now it wouldn't work, hence they were nerfed because the auto clumping just happens way too easily compared to how you can spread them. 1 move and they are basically clumped again now in the current state
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
You can't realistically spread manually in this game to prevent AoE spells, there isn't anywhere near enough time. And then when you go back to attack, everything bunches back together again. It'd get to a point where you'd start wishing the game had a 12 unit selection cap.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
You can't realistically spread manually in this game to prevent AoE spells, there isn't anywhere near enough time. And then when you go back to attack, everything bunches back together again. It'd get to a point where you'd start wishing the game had a 12 unit selection cap.
For me that point is already here. I wish so much for something that would make the game mechanically harder and would also discourage 1a into gg
Does anyone else think that Zerg will be raped by Tempest and widow mines because zerg is the only race that is not very usefull with a giant deathball? packs of lings/raoches/hydras/and mutas are very week and if you hit 1 widow mine or 1 splash of damage, it will completely kill the zerg force. Im also scared of an air unit with so much range..... That just means it can aid the death ball from a really really far range, and is Zerg getting an anti air unit that i havent heard about? zerg has very limited anti air in sc2. maybe the burrow charge Ultralist will take out those Tempest amiright guys? amiright???
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
You can't realistically spread manually in this game to prevent AoE spells, there isn't anywhere near enough time. And then when you go back to attack, everything bunches back together again. It'd get to a point where you'd start wishing the game had a 12 unit selection cap.
For me that point is already here. I wish so much for something that would make the game mechanically harder and would also discourage 1a into gg
If you want APM sinks, there are a lot of things that can be done to make the game mechanically challenging! Cut MBS! Cut auto-mine! Implement a 12 unit cap!
But seriously, I don't think unit selection is the issue. Even if you can select all your units in a single control group, it's how units function within the game that's the issue. I think the pathing change suggestion is brilliant. It is simple to implement and it radically changes how the game can be played - for the better.
If you want to clump your units up, ok - but deathballs should be destroyed by AOE.
At this point in the game's lifetime all sources of AOE have been nerfed hardcore due to the clumping in the pathing engine. Which causes deathballs.
Players need to be punished if they clump up units. And right now the game does so after every fucking click.
We punish that with high damage AOE. There are two roads - the incredibly painful one that isn't likely to be implemented (high damage AOE with the current pathing system), and one that is much more tolerable (no auto-clump, allowing for higher damage AOE). Removing the giant unit blob like that would make the game much more challenging IMO. Allowing for multiple engagements, spacial control, fighting around the map in pursuit of strategic objectives - all things with more multitasking involved.
Like you, I would also like to see more APM sinks implemented to make the game more mechanically challenging. But the issue at hand is the auto-clump deathball. And the only way to stop that is to have harsh consequences for clumping.
I think you guys are mistaking two different things for one. Deathball syndrome is not only that all units are physically clumped up into one big ball, it's also that all military units of one player are concentrated on one particular area of the map and not split into two smaller armies. While the first one is certainly connected to the new pathing and auto-clumping AI, the latter is definately not.
Strong and unforgiving AoE would prevent the deathball from being effective, so you could hold a strategic point with a few AoE units against a superior force (at least temporarily). Just think of bottlenecks like in '300', when quantity is just not the answer. Some of you people complain that manually spreading out the units to circumvent the AoE is impossible, but that is exactly the point. If preventing the deathball is the goal here, you are simply not supposed to attack with all your units at the same place. If you do nonetheless, you are supposed to take a severe punishment in the form of brutal AoE, whether you spread out your units somehow or not.
Instead, find other avenues of attack, do a simultaneous drop with some units, flank the enemy at another position or simply leave some units at home to thward off counter-drops. I agree though, that the current maps are often not open enough for such play but that's a problem easily fixed.
On July 03 2012 21:49 Lurk wrote: I think you guys are mistaking two different things for one. Deathball syndrome is not only that all units are physically clumped up into one big ball, it's also that all military units of one player are concentrated on one particular area of the map and not split into two smaller armies. While the first one is certainly connected to the new pathing and auto-clumping AI, the latter is definately not.
Strong and unforgiving AoE would prevent the deathball from being effective, so you could hold a strategic point with a few AoE units against a superior force (at least temporarily). Just think of bottlenecks like in '300', when quantity is just not the answer. Some of you people complain that manually spreading out the units to circumvent the AoE is impossible, but that is exactly the point. If preventing the deathball is the goal here, you are simply not supposed to attack with all your units at the same place. If you do nonetheless, you are supposed to take a severe punishment in the form of brutal AoE, whether you spread out your units somehow or not.
Instead, find other avenues of attack, do a simultaneous drop with some units, flank the enemy at another position or simply leave some units at home to thward off counter-drops. I agree though, that the current maps are often not open enough for such play but that's a problem easily fixed.
What I've been saying is that strong AOE is the answer to preventing the "giant balls of shit that run around the map in a clusterfuck."
But Blizzard will not implement strong AOE with the current pathing system. In fact, they've nerfed it! The two issues are connected.
Spreading out the units after EVERY click to circumvent AOE is not impossible, but it's pretty fucking difficult. If AOE damage sources were increased with the current system then it would make it impossible - limiting gameplay.
You WANT to see units spread out. But auto-clump is a fucking hassle, leading to deathballs. And deathballs = weak AOE to compensate.
I'm afraid the two are connected and you really can't have one without the other (I've been thinking about this a lot lol).
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
SC2 should not be going backward and completely alienate its playerbase. It needs to move forward in the stratgic department and gives new difficulties that pro players can invest in to better themselves.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
And just simply focusing on the strategic department is just bad, there needs to be something else too to seperate the best players from the other and the level of strategy is still just as high and higher even at the highest level no matter the more difficult mechanics.
I'm sorry but this is simply a terrible idea. Why would you have two different games depending merely on whether you in tournament or ladder? How do you think players practise for tournament? Yes that's right on ladder.
And what is classified as tournament? Just big lans like MLG? Or online tournaments such as playhem? Not to mention its a huge barrier of entry for upcoming pros.
Sorry but for people to have efficient practise you need consistency. You can't just expect people to play two completely different games when they are laddering compared to when they are playing tournaments.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
This type of play is rewarded because AoEs were heavily nerfed to account for the fact that units auto-clump (making it too difficult to properly spread). If auto-clumping were removed, and clumping only happens manually, then AoEs could be buffed back to where they should be.
But you could just buff AoE and make the players spread manually.
You can't realistically spread manually in this game to prevent AoE spells, there isn't anywhere near enough time. And then when you go back to attack, everything bunches back together again. It'd get to a point where you'd start wishing the game had a 12 unit selection cap.
Emphasis added. I'd like to reiterate this point again for anyone who still doesn't get it:
Selection caps don't matter. You can assign 12 or fewer units per control group in SC2 and deathballs would still happen, and you could use unlimited selection hacks in BW and you still wouldn't get deathballs.
Deathballs are a consequence of unit pathing, not unit selection caps.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded.
Not exactly, it IS relevant to unit clumping.
Take the classic Terran MMM composition. Medivacs fly above it so don't interfere with the ground units. Marines and Marauders form this very, very dense cluster of absurdly high DPS. The damage output of a Marine/Marauder ball is insane.
If they weren't clustered like that the DPS wouldn't be so high and it'd be easier to pick off units and engage. But it's not like that, so everyone else has to get units that do AoE damage to harm it. Hence it's generally better to just ball up the MMM until you HAVE to spread to avoid fungals or whatever, because it's more effective that way.
On July 03 2012 21:27 Adrenal6land wrote: Does anyone else think that Zerg will be raped by Tempest and widow mines because zerg is the only race that is not very usefull with a giant deathball? packs of lings/raoches/hydras/and mutas are very week and if you hit 1 widow mine or 1 splash of damage, it will completely kill the zerg force. Im also scared of an air unit with so much range..... That just means it can aid the death ball from a really really far range, and is Zerg getting an anti air unit that i havent heard about? zerg has very limited anti air in sc2. maybe the burrow charge Ultralist will take out those Tempest amiright guys? amiright???
...unless I missed something I was under the impression the Tempest had become single-target (like the Carrier).
Why not give all races some static or semistatic defense (with high cost or low DPS) and really huge AOE (like the 1/2 of the whole screen), which would be very cost effective if it was to hit a deathball and not cost-effective against small or medium groups of units?
It would discourage a deathball-based aggression and encourage harassment and multipronged attacks. What do you guys think? Should we push this idea?
Diamond Terran here, wouldnt increasing AOE damage make Terran even more difficult to play? AOE damage is a large part of why Terran takes so much control with constant splitting. I don't like the idea of stronger AOEs.
Has anyone considered that maybe the protoss deathball isn't so bad?
I mean think about it. The zerg get to be swarmy, the terran have multi pronged attacks, tank crawls, and diverse harassment methods (drops, reavers, bansees), and the protoss have their deathball. The deathball moves out with it's core units that need to be taken out (Colossi, immortals, or HTs), and it's supporting units (stalkers, zealots). With the ability to recall to the mothership core, it starts to become pretty cool. Just look at Kiwikaki vs Stephano Game 2 at IPL3, MVP vs Squirtle Game five at last GSL finals, or Hero vs Annyung from the IPLTAC3 Last week to see how once the protoss has the recall ability they start to really get a racial dynamic that is unique to them.
Yes, currently the deathball is boring until the mothership comes out because it results in the possibility of single-engagement games. In HoTS, the protoss at the very least will not have to wory about that. I can't WAIT to see what former WC3 players use the mothership core's recall for especially.
Dont you think that in BW there was no deathball but more raid because deathball would get annhilated by small groups like Reavers, templars, tanks or lurker and it dealt way more dmg???
On July 03 2012 22:41 Alex1Sun wrote: Why not give all races some static or semistatic defense (with high cost or low DPS) and really huge AOE (like the 1/2 of the whole screen), which would be very cost effective if it was to hit a deathball and not cost-effective against small or medium groups of units?
It would discourage a deathball-based aggression and encourage harassment and multipronged attacks. What do you guys think? Should we push this idea?
sry didnt read you post this was what im talking about. If they had something that could like 1 shot half of you marines there would be less balls like this
On July 03 2012 22:46 Acertos wrote: Dont you think that in BW there was no deathball but more raid because deathball would get annhilated by small groups like Reavers, templars, tanks or lurker and it dealt way more dmg???
That is exactly right. But due to the pathing engine in SCII Blizzard has nerfed AOE leading to deathballs. In BW power-units were able to control a large amount of space freeing up supply for attacks all around the map. In SCII it's all just a giant ball of shit.
On July 03 2012 22:41 Riverdragon0 wrote: Diamond Terran here, wouldnt increasing AOE damage make Terran even more difficult to play? AOE damage is a large part of why Terran takes so much control with constant splitting. I don't like the idea of stronger AOEs.
Actually no, as long as siege tank AOE damage got a big enough buff. Deathball play is a main reason terran is so bad in lategame. Being clumped up is not a naturally good formation for marines and marauders, but terran's do it anyway because that's the ONLY way to fight certain types of enemy deathballs. Fungal and storm are very effective at dealing with much larger numbers of marines and marauders, and this is how EVERY kind of splash damage (especially tanks) should work.
This would mean terran could stop their base from being overrun with 6-10 siege tanks while doing drops, banshee harass, hellion run-bys, and all the other mobile stuff terran players like to do but often can't because splitting up your army in WoL often means you just lose to the enemy deathball.
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
Making it less limiting from 12 unit to 24 is not any better, it is still severely limiting. Seperating tournament and ladder is a decent idea but not a good one as you require two seperate balances and every units will have to change depending on which ladder. You might as well just make a new game
How would it be like just making a new game? You'd already have half of it finished already and then you'd just need balance changes every month now and then for each
If the game engine is done, Blizzard can implement any random units they wanted without much effort. Hardest part about RTS is balancing. And game design between those two would have been different as well, cause for instance larva would be extremely overpowered in a non-MBS environment and zerglings would be extremely weak
It's not like any of these changes would require a change of the game engine, basically everything can be added already without any change to it which has already been shown in several different custom maps and modes.
Also suggested the unit limit selection being done somehow with supply instead of simply 12 units which could allow for 12 zealots or 24 zerglins etc
It's not as easy as you make it out to be. sc2 was internally tested for many months, and beta was tested for 6 months, yet the game still came out extremely imbalance and took many patches of fine tuning to get to where we are today. RTS balancing truly takes alot of effort and time that I don't think its festible trying to maintain two mode
Well said. Those looking for "Tournament Mode" in my humble opinion would be best served by playing MavercK's incredible BW mod. It has options for enabling/disabling certain UI features such as unit selection limit.
On July 03 2012 17:27 iky43210 wrote: limiting unit selections and removing MBS is just asking to frustrate new players, and that's the last thing u want is to drive away your playerbase.
SC2 should not be going backward and completely alienate its playerbase. It needs to move forward in the stratgic department and gives new difficulties that pro players can invest in to better themselves.
Not if you do it in the way that I've suggested earlier in the thread and simply add a tournament mode and ladder with the seperate changes to balance and mechanics while still keeping the current game that blizzard likes.
And just simply focusing on the strategic department is just bad, there needs to be something else too to seperate the best players from the other and the level of strategy is still just as high and higher even at the highest level no matter the more difficult mechanics.
I'm sorry but this is simply a terrible idea. Why would you have two different games depending merely on whether you in tournament or ladder? How do you think players practise for tournament? Yes that's right on ladder.
And what is classified as tournament? Just big lans like MLG? Or online tournaments such as playhem? Not to mention its a huge barrier of entry for upcoming pros.
Sorry but for people to have efficient practise you need consistency. You can't just expect people to play two completely different games when they are laddering compared to when they are playing tournaments.
I guess you misunderstood what I was saying then since I meant that the tournament mode is supposed to have its own seperate ladder which all the pros and other players who wants to play with the different settings would use.
I dunno, I'm skeptical. It's good that Blizzard is listening to our complaints, but while these new units theoretically don't add anything to the deathball they certainly don't do anything to break them up either.
I may be thinking too simplistically, but couldn't Blizzard force the units to spread more by just making the collision boxes on ranged units larger? Or is that a sacred cow, too?
On July 03 2012 21:49 Lurk wrote: I think you guys are mistaking two different things for one. Deathball syndrome is not only that all units are physically clumped up into one big ball, it's also that all military units of one player are concentrated on one particular area of the map and not split into two smaller armies. While the first one is certainly connected to the new pathing and auto-clumping AI, the latter is definately not.
Strong and unforgiving AoE would prevent the deathball from being effective, so you could hold a strategic point with a few AoE units against a superior force (at least temporarily). Just think of bottlenecks like in '300', when quantity is just not the answer. Some of you people complain that manually spreading out the units to circumvent the AoE is impossible, but that is exactly the point. If preventing the deathball is the goal here, you are simply not supposed to attack with all your units at the same place. If you do nonetheless, you are supposed to take a severe punishment in the form of brutal AoE, whether you spread out your units somehow or not.
Instead, find other avenues of attack, do a simultaneous drop with some units, flank the enemy at another position or simply leave some units at home to thward off counter-drops. I agree though, that the current maps are often not open enough for such play but that's a problem easily fixed.
What I've been saying is that strong AOE is the answer to preventing the "giant balls of shit that run around the map in a clusterfuck."
But Blizzard will not implement strong AOE with the current pathing system. In fact, they've nerfed it! The two issues are connected.
Spreading out the units after EVERY click to circumvent AOE is not impossible, but it's pretty fucking difficult. If AOE damage sources were increased with the current system then it would make it impossible - limiting gameplay.
You WANT to see units spread out. But auto-clump is a fucking hassle, leading to deathballs. And deathballs = weak AOE to compensate.
I'm afraid the two are connected and you really can't have one without the other (I've been thinking about this a lot lol).
Blizzard nerfed AoE before players were really playing the game properly. Now we have people like MarineKing (and pretty much any code a or s player nowadays )to show us the way.
You wouldn't have to spread your units out after every click. You'd only have to do that if you had everything in one control group. Loads of people in this thread want 12 unit selection limit back (which lets be honest is never gonna happen) but there's nothing stopping you from selecting small chunks of your army at a time and moving it piece by piece. It might take a lot of mechanical skill to pull off, but isn't that what people want?
On July 03 2012 21:49 Lurk wrote: I think you guys are mistaking two different things for one. Deathball syndrome is not only that all units are physically clumped up into one big ball, it's also that all military units of one player are concentrated on one particular area of the map and not split into two smaller armies. While the first one is certainly connected to the new pathing and auto-clumping AI, the latter is definately not.
Strong and unforgiving AoE would prevent the deathball from being effective, so you could hold a strategic point with a few AoE units against a superior force (at least temporarily). Just think of bottlenecks like in '300', when quantity is just not the answer. Some of you people complain that manually spreading out the units to circumvent the AoE is impossible, but that is exactly the point. If preventing the deathball is the goal here, you are simply not supposed to attack with all your units at the same place. If you do nonetheless, you are supposed to take a severe punishment in the form of brutal AoE, whether you spread out your units somehow or not.
Instead, find other avenues of attack, do a simultaneous drop with some units, flank the enemy at another position or simply leave some units at home to thward off counter-drops. I agree though, that the current maps are often not open enough for such play but that's a problem easily fixed.
What I've been saying is that strong AOE is the answer to preventing the "giant balls of shit that run around the map in a clusterfuck."
But Blizzard will not implement strong AOE with the current pathing system. In fact, they've nerfed it! The two issues are connected.
Spreading out the units after EVERY click to circumvent AOE is not impossible, but it's pretty fucking difficult. If AOE damage sources were increased with the current system then it would make it impossible - limiting gameplay.
You WANT to see units spread out. But auto-clump is a fucking hassle, leading to deathballs. And deathballs = weak AOE to compensate.
I'm afraid the two are connected and you really can't have one without the other (I've been thinking about this a lot lol).
Blizzard nerfed AoE before players were really playing the game properly. Now we have people like MarineKing (and pretty much any code a or s player nowadays )to show us the way.
You wouldn't have to spread your units out after click. You'd only have to do that if you had everything in one control group. Loads of people in this thread want 12 unit selection limit back (which lets be honest is never gonna happen) but there's nothing stopping you from selecting small chunks of your army at a time and moving it piece by piece. It might take a lot of mechanical skill to pull off, but isn't that what people want?
I think its so true, because not a lot of pros have 2 or 3 control groups for their army aside from zerg who needs to flank (and aside from magic units). And having like 3 or 4 groups to avoid having all things killed or for multi pronged would be nice and rly micro intensive.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
In order to break up the deathball the game has to reward small skrimishes, holding severral strategic positions on the map (a watchtower is not a strategic position, and if holding one position is enough, then a deathball can hold it), punish big clumps of units harder etc. Currently SC2 does very little of this, if anything at all.
You can keep talking about this and that to help deal with the issue, but it's not gonna change the fact that the way SC2 was designed, fighting one fight with one big ball of units is rewarded.
Don't like it? Go play Company of Heroes in wait for COH2 to be released
I dont think maps do much to help or reward the player who does small skirmishes either when you have easy accessible paths to expansions which are usually wide open btw and close to the enemy that it literally 20 seconds or so to check with a stalker. I believe expansions should be more tucked in away if that makes sense and have different chokes, walls and paths in the middle of the map for counter attacks to reward to skirmishing player. idk.
On July 04 2012 08:04 kineSiS- wrote: SC2 as spectator sport pales in comparison to SC1. There are many reasons for this, more than I care posting.
I think most of the people here realize this, which is why the modified movement thread is starting to take off.
It's also why the FRB thread took off awhile ago, but as far as I know that has more or less died off.
People do realize all the shortcomings of SCII to BW. The sad part is we have really limited influence. And this game is the future (in many ways it is a step back, while claiming to be more sophisticated).
At the end of the day, the current build isn't really fun for me to play anymore. BW just has so much more strategic weight to it.
On July 03 2012 18:05 hashaki wrote: To everyone who thinks deathballsyndrome has anything to do with stuff like unit clumping, unlimited unit selection etc.. Are you guys retarded? Deathballs exist because that type of play is rewarded. If sitting in your own base building up a massive force is rewarded, that's what's gonna happen.
In order to break up the deathball the game has to reward small skrimishes, holding severral strategic positions on the map (a watchtower is not a strategic position, and if holding one position is enough, then a deathball can hold it), punish big clumps of units harder etc. Currently SC2 does very little of this, if anything at all.
You can keep talking about this and that to help deal with the issue, but it's not gonna change the fact that the way SC2 was designed, fighting one fight with one big ball of units is rewarded.
Don't like it? Go play Company of Heroes in wait for COH2 to be released
I dont think maps do much to help or reward the player who does small skirmishes either when you have easy accessible paths to expansions which are usually wide open btw and close to the enemy that it literally 20 seconds or so to check with a stalker. I believe expansions should be more tucked in away if that makes sense and have different chokes, walls and paths in the middle of the map for counter attacks to reward to skirmishing player. idk.
Company of Heroes has a much better pathing algorithm than SC2 though. It doesn't have the strongest of positioning mechanics either, because often in the end you are moving around a "deathball" of tanks. If SC2 had Company of Heroes pathing, where the units didn't just ball up it would be a much better game though. I've been saying that a lot heh.
For some reason the designers think that SC2 pathing is the best thing ever made, and making it different would make it like "terrible like BW" which is absolute crap. Even Warcraft 3 pathing is better than SC2, but company of heroes style would be ideal.
I'd love to be able to rebalance company of heroes to put more emphasis on infantry and positional play. Although British comes pretty damn close, because of the massive supply cost of each defensive structure, eventually you get stuck and can't progressively move forward unlike Terran in BW.
IMO, the reason why deathballs are bad and happen in SC2 while they don't in SCBW is the ease in which you can cover and take ground in SC2.
In SCBW, if you won a major battle, you still couldn't just push through the map and win, because, and I don't know about actual in-game numbers, but the maps FELT bigger, and each race had better entrenchment options.
If you won a major battle you couldn't "Just walk into Mordor", because lurkers, tanks, stronger static defenses (maybe?), and the time it would take your army to arrive at their base, vs the time it would take them to reinforce and WORSE the time it would take YOU to reinforce across the map.
Further, due to poorer pathing, your reinforcements might get lost, stuck on terrain, strung out all over, etc. Reinforcing was dangerous and time-consuming to do on the move.
Also, a lot of time huge battles made less sense in SCBW because micro was more important. There were more units that could do more with more skill in SCBW. If you took all those units and just threw them in a big ball, that would basically just be you admitting: "I can't micro all this effectively, so I'm just going to group it together and throw it at you and hope you die."
When your small groups of units could wage huge upset battles against larger forces, and 'minor' micro wins or losses could affect big swings in battle results, smaller groups of units engaging smaller groups of units was 'safer' for the worse player and more cost efficient and 'better' for the better player.
Now, you have units that work better in balls, have no micro to speak of, or very easy micro, and many units that either have NO micro to speak of, or micro that can easily be handled as a group rather than as individuals...so controlling the deathball is simple, and there's no micro advantage to using smaller groups.
This is because of microless units like the colossus and the thor, smart-casting on units like templars, ghosts and infestors, and simple-to-use micro on many units like stim and burrow, as well as 'one-use' micro like blink, where you can use it 1 or two times at the start of the battle and then either not much, or not at all after that.
Additionally the addition of units that nearly REQUIRE a ball to use does nothing to help this. Like the colossus and many others, some units are just crap by themselves. 1 colossus by itself, or even in a small group is nearly worthless. It's a waste of resources. Put that same colossus + 2-3 more into a huge ball of death though, and it completely powers up your whole army. That's not to say that units shouldn't have synergy...but to have units that are ONLY about synergy and shine most only in deathball situations means that's all you will see.
And the sad part is that nothing about this is something you can 'easily' fix. Sure you can bandaid this with pathing changes, or revisions to control group limits and such...but it's design flaws inherent in the game and unit design and balancing. I have to say the 'deathball situation' in sc2 is BY DESIGN. At some point in development, SOMEONE saw the deathball and they thought it was awesome. And so now that's what you have. That's how the game works.
Doubt the death ball will disappear with these units. We need less clumping in the AI + limited control groups (12 is kind of hardcore but perhaps 16 or 24).
Imagine SC2 with less unit clumping, limited control groups and removing auto-mining. Then I would probably love SC2 almost as much as BW.
Unless you are sub 30APM or something, a-moving your whole army in 1 or several control groups really isnt much different - so there is not much reason to discuss about that.
Control groups limits with current pathing system actually would add to the deathball effect - since now you have to spend more time setting up groups ( the main effect of limited groups ) - leaving less mutlitasking capability for harrassment. ( Horrible for spectator since setting up control groups is quite invisible , compared to say 2-3 drops at the same time).
Looking at the modified movement test map thread, changing pathing might be a good thing tho - this post has THE main reason for deathballs http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=349968¤tpage=19#362 , its near impossible to stall a deathball steamroll. Pathing, AoE changes and new maps might help that - and modders should indeed experiment that - if at some point they find the magic recipe that is really, really good - then i could see either blizzard trying it in an expansion ( the community will be split by expansions anyway so there is still two time-windows safe for experimentation )
On July 04 2012 17:20 rename wrote: Unless you are sub 30APM or something, a-moving your whole army in 1 or several control groups really isnt much different - so there is not much reason to discuss about that.
Control groups limits with current pathing system actually would add to the deathball effect - since now you have to spend more time setting up groups ( the main effect of limited groups ) - leaving less mutlitasking capability for harrassment. ( Horrible for spectator since setting up control groups is quite invisible , compared to say 2-3 drops at the same time).
No there are just as much or more action in BW games. Harder macro does not equal less exciting games. Just makes the game harder.
They're not going to change the fundamental mechanics. Large control groups, better AI pathing, etc. Is there to stay. The only knobs left to turn are unit design and maps.
On July 04 2012 18:42 OrchidThief wrote: They're not going to change the fundamental mechanics. Large control groups, better AI pathing, etc. Is there to stay. The only knobs left to turn are unit design and maps.
Clumping was an arbitrary decision, it's in no way "better." But yes, the fluid pathing is here to stay and there isn't anything we can do to make unit movements more retarded, but we can make a push for collision changes and no auto-clump.
Also, this would be a necessary change to really go in the proper direction with units. And maps, by extension.
On July 04 2012 16:34 0neder wrote: You can easily go a long ways, you buff the hell out of splash abilities, make units spacing more generous and heterogenous and make bigger open maps.
You are correct, this is not a hard design problem to solve if Blizzard is willing to give up the fairly retarded design philosophy of "lets reduce stalemates and make more fast hitting unit"
That is the main reason that siege tanks were nerfed so much and the reason that immortals exist, the immortal was not originally designed as an armored unit counter, it was originally supposed to be a tank against siege weapons to break siege lines.
The philosophy of avoiding strong positional units is what leads to stalemates because neither player can break up their death ball into pieces without being afraid of a portion of the ball being killed.
When units are very strong they need to be immobile, conversley when they are very weak, they need to be extremely mobile, the existence of "middle" units is what really hurts this dynamic. This problem is especially present with Protoss where their robo units (Immortals and colossus) are barely less mobile than the rest of their units, while being vastly superior in strength.
The situations that everyone wants to see are powerful units such as templar and siege tanks guarding critical areas such as a choke or a forward base. The presence of two templar is difficult to crack for even a massive amount of MM, and the presence of a few siege tanks with a building wall is unbreakable for zerglings.
If you extend this philosophy, we can safely say that if you vastly increase the upfront damage of Colossus so much so that they burn through infantry instantly, but vastly reduce the mobility of colossus, so much so that they are slower or as slow as templar, you will create situations where Terran is forced to drop even more than they are now.
Conversely, if you then vastly increase the damage output of siege tanks, you will start to see siege lines vs. carefully positioned colossus with warp prisms and drops going off everywhere.
This is of course, also the "stale mate" that Blizzard doesn't want. Well Blizzard, make up your freaking mind.
I like this thread a lot. There's a lot of good ideas here, and as a former BW casual player I realize there's a large difference in terms of style of play.
Personally, I feel the game moves way too fast. While I realize people have said this before, I don't think it's truly emphasized here. One of the easiest comparisons I can make is upgrades. As a Terran in BW, it takes a total of 894 real time seconds to go from 0/0 to 3/3. In SC2, it takes a total of 570 blizzard time seconds. There's double gas and 8 mineral patches per base, some having gold minerals, which allows you to have a much stronger economy on a smaller number of bases. Coupled with the macro mechanics of SC2 that articfically makes the game even more faster (MULE + Reactors, Spawn Larva, Cronoboost), as well as Blizzard Time, and I really felt that the game has always been a race to the 200/200 money composition AKA the Deathball because it's that much easier to get what you want, and Upgrades cause so much of a landslide that it really limits the value in each individual unit created, or in same cases just outright neglect them (Carrier, Void Ray, BCs, and nowadays Factory units).
Upgrades just makes way too much of an impact on this game, unlike in BW where regardless if you have 3/3 200/200 Infantry, they're still going to die horribly to Reavers like cows going into a slaughter. 3/3 Dragoons are still going to die horribly if they run into 20 Siege Tanks covered with a field of mines, and Zerg in general just had much stronger and strategical units and the SC2 Zerg just seems like a shadow of it's former self.
So yeah, perhaps more Splash damage would help. But I personally feel none of that is going to matter with how fast the game is. The Early and Mid game needs to be extended by a significant margin to add more value to individual units. Right now it's pretty much just going through a checklist, and as a player it personally makes me sad that numbers are the only thing that matters right now.
Upgrades just makes way too much of an impact on this game, unlike in BW where regardless if you have 3/3 200/200 Infantry, they're still going to die horribly to Reavers like cows going into a slaughter. 3/3 Dragoons are still going to die horribly if they run into 20 Siege Tanks covered with a field of mines, and Zerg in general just had much stronger and strategical units and the SC2 Zerg just seems like a shadow of it's former self.
So yeah, perhaps more Splash damage would help. But I personally feel none of that is going to matter with how fast the game is. The Early and Mid game needs to be extended by a significant margin to add more value to individual units. Right now it's pretty much just going through a checklist, and as a player it personally makes me sad that numbers are the only thing that matters right now.
That's my main concern right now for HOTS, Zerg, and to a lesser extent Protoss. Protoss AOE needs some rework (collosus), and Zerg are lacking positional units entirely. That's why I keep saying over and over and over that we need the lurker instead of the swarm host.
Terran, just put the widowmine on the raven replacing the hunter seeker missile, making it cost 50 energy, and you're all good to go + buff tanks.
As for gamespeed I definitely agree, that is one of the focuses of the FRB thread (it's called something else now iirc), reducing mineral income rate so that the game slows down a bit. I could agree with that - also reducing the effect of macro mechanics (less larva spawned, less mule income).
I completely agree with HeroMystic on the speed. The game speed is vastly different from BW and that in combination with the issue discussed in this thread makes for a problematic deathball/fast game syndrom, where battles also end in a flash and comebacks are nigh impossible.
The speed of the game limits the amount of actions you can execute during a fight by a lot. Then you have the current clumping AI on top of that. There is a limit to human speed and APM and even the best micro players like MKP can only go so far.
I see too many people say: "Give it time, pro players will continue to get better and micro more and split more." However, the limits are almost reached already with the ingame speed of SC2 being a major factor.
The proposed clumping change should definitely be promoted and tested, and the discussions about the effects of AOE play a big role in its succes. It is the best we can do right now without completely throwing the core fundamentals of the game out of the window.
On July 04 2012 19:39 jpak wrote: SC2 takes way too little time to reach max supply.
this is another problem reletaed to some high supply units like colossi/ultra/thor
I'm going to make a blog post listing the changes I want to see for HOTS, lol. I doubt all of them will be feasible but I think most if not all of them would make the game better.
That's really an issue with the macro mechanic. That and the high damage output of some units due to clumping and the AI forces higher supply counts. I would definitely like to see 2 supply tanks, 4 supply ultras, 1 supply marauders/hydras etc etc etc.
Also things like spawn larva should be dropped down to +2 larva for inject instead. And Barrin's new idea (not FRB, 4 mineral trips) should be implemented to compensate.
I'm not going to say anything about the collosus b/c I think it's just a bad unit. Thor is sort of bad as well, but not nearly as much as the collosus.
1 supply marauder is too much, it's fine at 2, but definitely we need 4 supply for thor, colossus and ultra, also 2 supply tank and immortal(2 supply could be too much but if you think about it, it is already hard to spam them because they need the robotic facility)
On July 02 2012 15:13 emc wrote: I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker.
On July 02 2012 13:35 pzea469 wrote: For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing.
Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer.
On July 02 2012 15:13 emc wrote: I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker.
On July 02 2012 13:35 pzea469 wrote: For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing.
Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer.
Just witnessed that video.
They need to implement this. I mean wow, armies actually look like armies marching to battle..
On July 04 2012 20:15 Garmer wrote: 1 supply marauder is too much, it's fine at 2, but definitely we need 4 supply for thor, colossus and ultra, also 2 supply tank and immortal(2 supply could be too much but if you think about it, it is already hard to spam them because they need the robotic facility)
Yeah I changed my mind about the marauder too. Maybe if they slashed health/damage a bit. I'm also looking at roaches/hydras. For the efficiency of an immortal I think 3 supply is perfect. unless the collosus is changed I think it's fine where it is b/c it really just promotes deathball play. It can't control space b/c it is too weak on its own. Ultra buff to 4 supply would make them perfect for HOTS.
On July 02 2012 15:13 emc wrote: I'm all for buffing aoe but the problem is that units auto clump, so that wouldn't solve a thing unless the units pathing started acting like BW. All buffing aoe would do is make battles end even quicker.
On July 02 2012 13:35 pzea469 wrote: For anyone curious about the unit spread/fluid movement thing that was talked about earlier in the thread, I made a quick video showing the differences. I'm not suggesting that this movement should directly be used, I'm just showing how this type of movement is a lot more spread out and doesn't clump, giving ideas on what could be done to SC2 in the future. I've never actually seen this used in a match.
Thanks to Bommes for letting me know about this. It's definitely very interesting.
if they added this and buffed aoe I would be happy. since you can still ball units up, buffing aoe would punish people who purposefully ball their units.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. If units occupied more space or moved like that, they could buff aoe and still be balanced. Should lead to more spread out fights, hence longer fights that allow more microing.
Another problem with the deathball is what I call layers. A layer is ground or air. A third layer is the colossus layer. This is why protoss deathballs are so good with colossuses, cause they can use three layers, making their army even more compact. Remove this colossus layer and have them actually take up space in the ground layer.
Yeah, it's kind of funny that Blizzard made stuff like Oracles, so that you'd have one unit standing around near the enemy's base, so they could say it "breaks up the deathball". when really, 75% of the problem is just that SC2 units are exceedingly good and clumping up into deathballs, and will try to do it whether the player likes it or not, any time he moves them.
On July 04 2012 16:29 Reithan wrote: IMO, the reason why deathballs are bad and happen in SC2 while they don't in SCBW is the ease in which you can cover and take ground in SC2.
In SCBW, if you won a major battle, you still couldn't just push through the map and win, because, and I don't know about actual in-game numbers, but the maps FELT bigger, and each race had better entrenchment options.
If you won a major battle you couldn't "Just walk into Mordor", because lurkers, tanks, stronger static defenses (maybe?), and the time it would take your army to arrive at their base, vs the time it would take them to reinforce and WORSE the time it would take YOU to reinforce across the map.
Further, due to poorer pathing, your reinforcements might get lost, stuck on terrain, strung out all over, etc. Reinforcing was dangerous and time-consuming to do on the move.
Also, a lot of time huge battles made less sense in SCBW because micro was more important. There were more units that could do more with more skill in SCBW. If you took all those units and just threw them in a big ball, that would basically just be you admitting: "I can't micro all this effectively, so I'm just going to group it together and throw it at you and hope you die."
When your small groups of units could wage huge upset battles against larger forces, and 'minor' micro wins or losses could affect big swings in battle results, smaller groups of units engaging smaller groups of units was 'safer' for the worse player and more cost efficient and 'better' for the better player.
Now, you have units that work better in balls, have no micro to speak of, or very easy micro, and many units that either have NO micro to speak of, or micro that can easily be handled as a group rather than as individuals...so controlling the deathball is simple, and there's no micro advantage to using smaller groups.
This is because of microless units like the colossus and the thor, smart-casting on units like templars, ghosts and infestors, and simple-to-use micro on many units like stim and burrow, as well as 'one-use' micro like blink, where you can use it 1 or two times at the start of the battle and then either not much, or not at all after that.
Additionally the addition of units that nearly REQUIRE a ball to use does nothing to help this. Like the colossus and many others, some units are just crap by themselves. 1 colossus by itself, or even in a small group is nearly worthless. It's a waste of resources. Put that same colossus + 2-3 more into a huge ball of death though, and it completely powers up your whole army. That's not to say that units shouldn't have synergy...but to have units that are ONLY about synergy and shine most only in deathball situations means that's all you will see.
And the sad part is that nothing about this is something you can 'easily' fix. Sure you can bandaid this with pathing changes, or revisions to control group limits and such...but it's design flaws inherent in the game and unit design and balancing. I have to say the 'deathball situation' in sc2 is BY DESIGN. At some point in development, SOMEONE saw the deathball and they thought it was awesome. And so now that's what you have. That's how the game works.
Forgot to include a tl;dr:
1. It's too fast and easy to reinforce on the attack. 2. Attacking armies move through armies/bases too quickly due to lack of good positional defensive units that can actually hold ground against attacking units.
3. no point in using smaller groups due to no bonuses to microing small groups due to smartcast and lack of good micro units
4. large groups just as easy to micro/move as small groups
5. some new units require deathball to be at full efficiency (colossus)
The OP misses the point. The Deathball won't disappear because of any of these new units.
Fundamentally Protoss has an army that won't trade well so it needs to protect and buy time for its AoE to be effective. I do have worries about the widow mine if that run in technique is very effective. The november ghost change is evidence how sensitive the balance is in TvP trades.
Terran is going to become deathbally as hell if they go mech.... that's just how mech works.
Sure terran can do multi drops against toss... but that's as much due to how ridiculously fast medivacs heal drops and how meh slow toss units do in smaller groups against terrans (there's no micro edge you can exploit).
Zerg infact got units designed to work in a death ball or needing a death ball...
No this op is completely off the mark. All this talk about pathing also misses the fundamental design of the game that will always encourage one race to be more deathbally than the other.
Good point Sabu, but pathing/spacing WILL fix things. It's not that all deathballs are inherently bad, it's that they are so concentrated and homogenous that rarely is anything else viable.
The proposals about unit formations, less clumpy pathing and increased aoe damage and range, like many suggested, seemed very good ideas to me for breaking up the deathball and surely need to be tested thoroughly. I also feel that the colossus in particular, which sits on its support units and thereby almost automatically creates a deathball, could be altered or removed.
On July 04 2012 08:04 kineSiS- wrote: SC2 as spectator sport pales in comparison to SC1. There are many reasons for this, more than I care posting.
mutalisk micro, scourge micro , dragoon micro, mines versus anything, zealot bombing, dodging lurkers, marines running over lurkers told not to attack, plague hitting tons of units, dark swarm in general, vulture micro, especially the excitement the reaver adds with hit/miss of scarabs, storms versus drones, storms versus anything actually (but drones always gave me a smirk on my face), dozen more probably.
On July 05 2012 02:44 0neder wrote: Good point Sabu, but pathing/spacing WILL fix things. It's not that all deathballs are inherently bad, it's that they are so concentrated and homogenous that rarely is anything else viable.
The problem is that there is no downside to the deathball ... because AoE isnt that strong ... well for most races. Banelings can easily do rather concentrated damage on deathballs (when dropped or undiscovered as mines), Colossi can do rather concentrated fire if there are several of them clumped up. In addition to this Forcefields, Fungal Growth and the "unlimited and free" Broodlings from Broodlords have the capability to "shape the opposing deathball".
On the other hand concentrating Siege Tanks is simply stupid and Psi Storms are pretty close range and more or less defensively useful only. Terrans are also unable to "shape an opponents deathball", thus they are disadvantaged from both sides.
"Viable" is not an excuse for keeping the deathball. They kill any strategy element (SC2 is supposed to be an RTS) and "forces players" to go for a concentrated attack with all their forces. Only Terrans go for multi-pronged attacks with drops on several bases ... due to their disadvantages I mentioned above. If the other races were "discouraged" from using the deathball we would have more interesting games with action all over the place. So lets ask Blizzard to give Terrans the ability to discourage the deathball by increasing AoE effects by a lot (primarily Siege Tanks) and all those "anti-Siege Tank units" in HotS are fair game. Maybe we would see more air battles in the process as well ...
On July 05 2012 02:44 0neder wrote: Good point Sabu, but pathing/spacing WILL fix things. It's not that all deathballs are inherently bad, it's that they are so concentrated and homogenous that rarely is anything else viable.
The problem is that there is no downside to the deathball ... because AoE isnt that strong ... well for most races. Banelings can easily do rather concentrated damage on deathballs (when dropped or undiscovered as mines), Colossi can do rather concentrated fire if there are several of them clumped up. In addition to this Forcefields, Fungal Growth and the "unlimited and free" Broodlings from Broodlords have the capability to "shape the opposing deathball".
On the other hand concentrating Siege Tanks is simply stupid and Psi Storms are pretty close range and more or less defensively useful only. Terrans are also unable to "shape an opponents deathball", thus they are disadvantaged from both sides.
"Viable" is not an excuse for keeping the deathball. They kill any strategy element (SC2 is supposed to be an RTS) and "forces players" to go for a concentrated attack with all their forces. Only Terrans go for multi-pronged attacks with drops on several bases ... due to their disadvantages I mentioned above. If the other races were "discouraged" from using the deathball we would have more interesting games with action all over the place. So lets ask Blizzard to give Terrans the ability to discourage the deathball by increasing AoE effects by a lot (primarily Siege Tanks) and all those "anti-Siege Tank units" in HotS are fair game. Maybe we would see more air battles in the process as well ...
That is definitely the wrong way to "fix" death balls. Terrans also have a death ball, it's called mech or sky-terran.
More AoE for Siege Tanks? That is DEFINITELY not the way to go, I do not know if you ever encountered Marine/Tank/Medivac with 10+ Siege Tanks guarding their 3rd/4th, Zerg armies evaporate on that.
Terran use their multi-pronged attacks for several reasons: - they use Tier 1 units - Stimpack and Marines are very cost efficient when not fighting a huge blob - mobility - the only race with the option to deal damage with ground units and get the hell out of there
Why do you think Protoss get a rather strange harassment unit? Because Protoss have no way of harassing cost-efficiently at the moment. Drops are rather pathetic if they can be countered with an army and they have no healing, plus Zealots are melee units. Stalkers cannot be used for harassing.
It needs to be unit pathing as a somewhat viable solution. Two days ago, a Terran friend of mine wanted to try a way to counter Brood Lords in the late game by engaging them with Sky Terran. He failed with BCs then he went mass Raven (I mean 15+ Ravens), and my Corruptors evaporated, he told me later "why didn't you split them?" I said "but I did", the problem is, as soon as I gave the orders to attack or cast Corrupt, they go in a huge blob again instead of staying where I wasted so much time and APM to spread them, just a simply move command makes them go in the "deathball" mode.
You cannot fix the current deathball style by giving everyone more AoE (or even just Siege Tanks) as even if the players knew what is going to happen if they stack their units, their units will AUTOMATICALLY stack, and there is no APM or gosu control that can prevent that.
On July 05 2012 02:44 0neder wrote: Good point Sabu, but pathing/spacing WILL fix things. It's not that all deathballs are inherently bad, it's that they are so concentrated and homogenous that rarely is anything else viable.
The problem is that there is no downside to the deathball ... because AoE isnt that strong ... well for most races. Banelings can easily do rather concentrated damage on deathballs (when dropped or undiscovered as mines), Colossi can do rather concentrated fire if there are several of them clumped up. In addition to this Forcefields, Fungal Growth and the "unlimited and free" Broodlings from Broodlords have the capability to "shape the opposing deathball".
On the other hand concentrating Siege Tanks is simply stupid and Psi Storms are pretty close range and more or less defensively useful only. Terrans are also unable to "shape an opponents deathball", thus they are disadvantaged from both sides.
"Viable" is not an excuse for keeping the deathball. They kill any strategy element (SC2 is supposed to be an RTS) and "forces players" to go for a concentrated attack with all their forces. Only Terrans go for multi-pronged attacks with drops on several bases ... due to their disadvantages I mentioned above. If the other races were "discouraged" from using the deathball we would have more interesting games with action all over the place. So lets ask Blizzard to give Terrans the ability to discourage the deathball by increasing AoE effects by a lot (primarily Siege Tanks) and all those "anti-Siege Tank units" in HotS are fair game. Maybe we would see more air battles in the process as well ...
That is definitely the wrong way to "fix" death balls. Terrans also have a death ball, it's called mech or sky-terran.
More AoE for Siege Tanks? That is DEFINITELY not the way to go, I do not know if you ever encountered Marine/Tank/Medivac with 10+ Siege Tanks guarding their 3rd/4th, Zerg armies evaporate on that.
Terran use their multi-pronged attacks for several reasons: - they use Tier 1 units - Stimpack and Marines are very cost efficient when not fighting a huge blob - mobility - the only race with the option to deal damage with ground units and get the hell out of there
Why do you think Protoss get a rather strange harassment unit? Because Protoss have no way of harassing cost-efficiently at the moment. Drops are rather pathetic if they can be countered with an army and they have no healing, plus Zealots are melee units. Stalkers cannot be used for harassing.
It needs to be unit pathing as a somewhat viable solution. Two days ago, a Terran friend of mine wanted to try a way to counter Brood Lords in the late game by engaging them with Sky Terran. He failed with BCs then he went mass Raven (I mean 15+ Ravens), and my Corruptors evaporated, he told me later "why didn't you split them?" I said "but I did", the problem is, as soon as I gave the orders to attack or cast Corrupt, they go in a huge blob again instead of staying where I wasted so much time and APM to spread them, just a simply move command makes them go in the "deathball" mode.
You cannot fix the current deathball style by giving everyone more AoE (or even just Siege Tanks) as even if the players knew what is going to happen if they stack their units, their units will AUTOMATICALLY stack, and there is no APM or gosu control that can prevent that.
Mech is a "deathball" ... thats the best joke I heard in a while. One part of the definition of "ball" requires it to be MOBILE and terran mech is as far from that as possible. Oh and since when has air been viable en masse to form a deathball?
I have to agree - on a smaller level - that the pathing needs to be fixed, but your example of an air battle will ALWAYS result in clumped up units. Attack commands always follow a direct route to the target, even with "dynamic unit movement". The only part which that would fix is non-targeted movement, but even that would be an immense help.
I would disagree with you on that Terran is the only race with the potential to deal significant damage with a small strike force (drop play). Baneling drops are VERY efficient, but no one does them anymore; Storm drops can also annihilate a worker line, but no one does them anymore; double Immortal drop can surely kill a building or two before a Terran opponent can be back to defend against that, but no one does them anymore. "Getting the hell out of there" isnt an intrinsic part of a multi-pronged attack; its a bonus but only really necessary if you are NOT assaulting your opponent with a much larger force elsewhere. If you are barreling down the front door it is perfectly acceptable to have a suicide platoon in the back.
Why dont the other races do those multi-pronged attacks? Because they have methods to "shape their opponents army" with either Force Field or Fungal Growth, they simply DONT NEED TO. Terrans HAVE TO do those multi-pronged attacks to stand a chance of winning and if you go mech you cant really do that well (with unupgraded Marines and without Marauders). Strengthening the Terran capability to kill a deathball would help immensely to balance the "required strategies" for the races.
To make a long story short: The siege tank damage must be increased ... by A LOT (50+%) just so you arent totally screwed as mech player when your whole army gets easily overrun by a bunch of rather cheap Zerglings or whatnot. Increased damage also means more friendly fire. As an alternative Blizzard could - finally - remove friendly fire from the Siege Tank instead ... Friendly fire is one reason why mech is NOT VIABLE IMO. This increased damage potential would allow a Terran to spread his tanks much more and thus make the new "anti-expensive-unit" units from HotS more balanced. If the tank remains unchanged they are totally breaking mech with tanks ...
On July 05 2012 16:28 Rabiator wrote: To make a long story short: The siege tank damage must be increased ... by A LOT (50+%) just so you arent totally screwed
On July 05 2012 16:28 Rabiator wrote: To make a long story short: The siege tank damage must be increased ... by A LOT (50+%) just so you arent totally screwed
0_o ... i dont even... you cant be serious?
He's perhaps exaggerating the necessary change, but yes siege tank damage could return to what it was at the beginning the game or even to something more along the lines of BW with this change/collision modifications.
siege tank is in a not so great spot right now. TvT are going toward full bio builds again and same for TvZ. tank are still nowhere to be spotted in TvP
On July 05 2012 17:15 iky43210 wrote: siege tank is in a not so great spot right now. TvT are going toward full bio builds again and same for TvZ. tank are still nowhere to be spotted in TvP
I find it interesting that all the nerfs to siege tanks are actually due to the pathing system Blizzard implemented, lol.
It's not a unit design choice. That's why the warhound is in dev, as a unit response. But the tank will be hindered for as long as this pathing system remains in place.
Actually, the more you think about it, all of Blizzard's decisions revolve around this, lol. All the nerfs, - everything.
And so they implement a unit which spawns "broodlings" instead of a proper AOE unit like the zerg need.
They nerf siege tanks. They nerf hellions. And units like banelings are restricted by design, lol.
I would like to see a hold-fire command for tanks. You would be able to still use tanks as zone control in late game TvZ against broodlord infestor armys. It would also make them a bit more useful in TvP because you could use them to snipe key targets like HTs on demand. You could time the first shot. Right now tanks waste their first shots on the first target in sight, and you can't prevent that.
On July 05 2012 02:44 0neder wrote: Good point Sabu, but pathing/spacing WILL fix things. It's not that all deathballs are inherently bad, it's that they are so concentrated and homogenous that rarely is anything else viable.
The problem is that there is no downside to the deathball ... because AoE isnt that strong ... well for most races. Banelings can easily do rather concentrated damage on deathballs (when dropped or undiscovered as mines), Colossi can do rather concentrated fire if there are several of them clumped up. In addition to this Forcefields, Fungal Growth and the "unlimited and free" Broodlings from Broodlords have the capability to "shape the opposing deathball".
On the other hand concentrating Siege Tanks is simply stupid and Psi Storms are pretty close range and more or less defensively useful only. Terrans are also unable to "shape an opponents deathball", thus they are disadvantaged from both sides.
"Viable" is not an excuse for keeping the deathball. They kill any strategy element (SC2 is supposed to be an RTS) and "forces players" to go for a concentrated attack with all their forces. Only Terrans go for multi-pronged attacks with drops on several bases ... due to their disadvantages I mentioned above. If the other races were "discouraged" from using the deathball we would have more interesting games with action all over the place. So lets ask Blizzard to give Terrans the ability to discourage the deathball by increasing AoE effects by a lot (primarily Siege Tanks) and all those "anti-Siege Tank units" in HotS are fair game. Maybe we would see more air battles in the process as well ...
That is definitely the wrong way to "fix" death balls. Terrans also have a death ball, it's called mech or sky-terran.
More AoE for Siege Tanks? That is DEFINITELY not the way to go, I do not know if you ever encountered Marine/Tank/Medivac with 10+ Siege Tanks guarding their 3rd/4th, Zerg armies evaporate on that.
Terran use their multi-pronged attacks for several reasons: - they use Tier 1 units - Stimpack and Marines are very cost efficient when not fighting a huge blob - mobility - the only race with the option to deal damage with ground units and get the hell out of there
Why do you think Protoss get a rather strange harassment unit? Because Protoss have no way of harassing cost-efficiently at the moment. Drops are rather pathetic if they can be countered with an army and they have no healing, plus Zealots are melee units. Stalkers cannot be used for harassing.
It needs to be unit pathing as a somewhat viable solution. Two days ago, a Terran friend of mine wanted to try a way to counter Brood Lords in the late game by engaging them with Sky Terran. He failed with BCs then he went mass Raven (I mean 15+ Ravens), and my Corruptors evaporated, he told me later "why didn't you split them?" I said "but I did", the problem is, as soon as I gave the orders to attack or cast Corrupt, they go in a huge blob again instead of staying where I wasted so much time and APM to spread them, just a simply move command makes them go in the "deathball" mode.
You cannot fix the current deathball style by giving everyone more AoE (or even just Siege Tanks) as even if the players knew what is going to happen if they stack their units, their units will AUTOMATICALLY stack, and there is no APM or gosu control that can prevent that.
Mech is a "deathball" ... thats the best joke I heard in a while. One part of the definition of "ball" requires it to be MOBILE and terran mech is as far from that as possible. Oh and since when has air been viable en masse to form a deathball?
I have to agree - on a smaller level - that the pathing needs to be fixed, but your example of an air battle will ALWAYS result in clumped up units. Attack commands always follow a direct route to the target, even with "dynamic unit movement". The only part which that would fix is non-targeted movement, but even that would be an immense help.
I would disagree with you on that Terran is the only race with the potential to deal significant damage with a small strike force (drop play). Baneling drops are VERY efficient, but no one does them anymore; Storm drops can also annihilate a worker line, but no one does them anymore; double Immortal drop can surely kill a building or two before a Terran opponent can be back to defend against that, but no one does them anymore. "Getting the hell out of there" isnt an intrinsic part of a multi-pronged attack; its a bonus but only really necessary if you are NOT assaulting your opponent with a much larger force elsewhere. If you are barreling down the front door it is perfectly acceptable to have a suicide platoon in the back.
Why dont the other races do those multi-pronged attacks? Because they have methods to "shape their opponents army" with either Force Field or Fungal Growth, they simply DONT NEED TO. Terrans HAVE TO do those multi-pronged attacks to stand a chance of winning and if you go mech you cant really do that well (with unupgraded Marines and without Marauders). Strengthening the Terran capability to kill a deathball would help immensely to balance the "required strategies" for the races.
To make a long story short: The siege tank damage must be increased ... by A LOT (50+%) just so you arent totally screwed as mech player when your whole army gets easily overrun by a bunch of rather cheap Zerglings or whatnot. Increased damage also means more friendly fire. As an alternative Blizzard could - finally - remove friendly fire from the Siege Tank instead ... Friendly fire is one reason why mech is NOT VIABLE IMO. This increased damage potential would allow a Terran to spread his tanks much more and thus make the new "anti-expensive-unit" units from HotS more balanced. If the tank remains unchanged they are totally breaking mech with tanks ...
If that is your definition of a "ball", then Brood Lords definitely don't fit in that category.
I do agree that tanks should have a Hold Fire action, as then the Terran players could Hold Fire and manually target down the Infestors/Banelings with Siege Tanks when Brood Lords come in action. Although, the overexaggeration of your Siege Tank damage is ridiculous. First off, your Siege Tanks should NEVER and again I say NEVER all die to Zerglings, simply because you have Hellions, which you should have a bunch anyhow, as Minerals are not the problem for Mech Terran and they act as a good fodder to keep the Zerg Roaches away from your Siege Tanks and Thors.
If, however, the Zerg decides to mass up Zerglings (which is quite ridiculous, since Siege Tanks 1 shot Zerglings and Hellions are a direct counter), you should just put your Hellions near your Siege Tanks and problem solved. You will lose some Siege Tanks but Zerg will lose all of its Zerglings, not a fair trade.
I am not saying that multi-pronged attacks should be nerfed or something, no way. Some of us players dislike the fact that everything dies too fucking fast, and I am amongst those players. 3/3 drops do ridiculous damage, but that's the point of upgrading them, to do more damage.
And to answer your question, you do see Storm drops (heck, I play Zerg and I still see them), but you do not see Baneling drops as they are quite a risky investment (investing 300 gas in that when it can be used elsewhere, since when you do get the drops, gas becomes VERY VERY important for Zerg).
The fact that Siege Tanks have friendly fire is because Terran has no melee units, especially in mid-game, end-game could use that Hold Fire ability, we all know that.
On July 05 2012 17:52 submarine wrote: I would like to see a hold-fire command for tanks. You would be able to still use tanks as zone control in late game TvZ against broodlord infestor armys. It would also make them a bit more useful in TvP because you could use them to snipe key targets like HTs on demand. You could time the first shot. Right now tanks waste their first shots on the first target in sight, and you can't prevent that.
worst idea ever. the siege tank ai is already really good. no overkill and you can target fire if you have sight anyways
On July 05 2012 17:52 submarine wrote: I would like to see a hold-fire command for tanks. You would be able to still use tanks as zone control in late game TvZ against broodlord infestor armys. It would also make them a bit more useful in TvP because you could use them to snipe key targets like HTs on demand. You could time the first shot. Right now tanks waste their first shots on the first target in sight, and you can't prevent that.
worst idea ever. the siege tank ai is already really good. no overkill and you can target fire if you have sight anyways
I don't see how having a hold fire is worst idea ever, its optional.
What he means is that, although you can target fire if you have sight, you cannot control that first shot as it will always hit the first ling that enters the zone. Would be nice being able to control when to attack and what to attack first
It will also give you an option of having a hold line against broodlings, and not have your entire army evaporate from friendly fire
I also think maps encourage deathballs especially the first maps from Blizzard as apposed to now but It's still bad, it's just more convenient to sit in the middle of your three bases with one giant ball, it's like you have no incentive to move out because the risk of getting out of position is too large and very unforgiving.
I try to get away from the deathball mentality during my games, but deathballing is just so much easier. Warp prism harass, zealot pokes and blink stalker play are all fun and rewarding, but macroing and waiting for a 200/200 deathball makes for a much easier win.
a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 23:58 wcr.4fun wrote: let's not forget it's just as important as identifying the issue and making it clear to blizzard as finding a solution.
Well the solution isnt to have a thread and expect Blizzard to go "oh ok well change our game engine"
There are two options for enacting change 1) Blizzard makes HOTS units/mechamics that discourage deathball
2) The community embraces and plays a mod with the kind of pathing they want to play and it becomes the next DOTA, making blizzard take notice.
Notice I said community, not day9, not the pros. It is the people who need to play the game first.
The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
I agree that the death ball, in it's "1a" form, is horrible. However, like we see in this thread there are some people that like it, and i think A LOT of people that do not post on TL also like it.
I think the biggest changes in regards to this will come some time after LOTV when the "casuals" "i want to win easy and feel good about myself" crowd will have moved on to the next shiny thing. People want auto-aim, green compass arows that show them the way, and 1a armys.
On July 08 2012 00:29 Truenappa wrote: The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
We certainly do see some non-deathball play but to say that people might all of the sudden discover that deathballs arnt effective is a stretch.
On July 08 2012 00:29 Truenappa wrote: The other Zerg unit (swarm lord) also helps break up the deathball.
I think Blizzard is properly reacting and adding some suitable units to the game. The metagame will steer towards the most effective strategies (which I don't believe are deathballs) anyway, but I suppose this help in added units will add greater momentum to that trend.
It will definitely increase the skill cap of SC2 as efficient non-deathball army compositions will further stress player abilities.
Actually I think the lurker would do a much better job breaking up the death ball.
On July 07 2012 23:44 Archerofaiur wrote: Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 23:44 Archerofaiur wrote: Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
This is very very good maverck, the ball take a lot more space and stretches out when it moves .
I dont think MavercK's mod takes into account formation diameter (magic box) which the modified movement map uses. Do people like the bigger magic boxes or is it pointless?
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
I can understand cool big units demolishing each other and creating explosions being enjoyable to watch, but it is terrible for the players. As you get better at the game, it frustrates you to no end to deal with deathballs, regardless of the race you play (because there is a death ball that each race or player specifically hates to no end).
Nobody wants the game to be decided in literally on giant battle where the result is more or less obvious. Games should be won by outplaying your opponent. But instead, you can defend all day, get an unstoppable army, then basically 1a your way to victory. It takes no mechanical skill or tactical or strategic intelligence to do any of that. A 5 year old could do as much.
Games are better when you can't really tell who's going to win just by the sheer size of the armies of the players. Nobody likes matches that are already decided on paper, and that's basically what deathballs are.
This is my first post but i've been a long time fan of the TL site/community.
I played BW for years and was in SC2 beta on day one and the first thing i noticed was how much splash damage had suffered in the transition between games and hated it. HOTS seems to continue that. The second thing was the game was speeded up, economies are easier to grow in SC2 and max out on which is bad. The window for harass is much smaller due to this. The FRB maps/discussion and day9's suggestion to increase unit cap was very interesting to me and i fully support it, in the end it only seemed to delay the deathball. So econ/macro mechanics and splash have been on my running mental list for some time now. The third thing on my mind is always the poorly implemented high ground mechanic. Either you have it and are invincible or it doesn't exist at all. This is also bad. Now that ive read through most of this discussion, the pathing i agree could use some changing, not 100% sure about it, but i like the idea of formations sticking combined w/ the splash increase. This is still the best forum for SC, we are true fans and gamers, and i would like to see some of the great map makers get in on this and help test it out. Are there other threads i should be aware of regarding the current discussion?
On July 02 2012 01:07 Fragile51 wrote: Come on, don't act like everyone's just going to make one of these units and call it a day. Imagine having 4 oracles shutting down 4 bases of mining at the same time if you have the multitasking to pull it off. Imagine having 2 tempest on two different sides of the map, harassing the production in the main as well as the mining on the 5th. I dgaf about the new unit comps, i'm happy that large amounts of mutlitasking will be rewarded and even encouraged in HoTS.
600/600 slow capital ship harassment, please. They will kill a drone in one shot only when upgraded, so add upgrades to that. So every 6 (or was it 7) seconds you kill a drone, so in order to kill 20 drones you'll need 120 seconds, neat. Really, Tempest is just bad, bad, bad.
Imo to break up a deathball you do requre limiting of groups.
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
The deathball is a terrible concept, because it makes you put "all your eggs into one basket". This is one of the reasons why big units (Thor, Siege Tank, Immortal, Colossus, Carrier, BC) have become terrible and if you go that route and lose them ALL in one big encounter you will probably lose the entire game. That is a bad concept and having slow positional pushes where you only lose part of your army every time is much better; in other words BW gameplay.
This is a small necro but since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It turns out that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II." -Patrick Wyatt, Producer/Lead Programmer of Warcraft 1
On July 27 2012 06:56 Archerofaiur wrote: This is a small necro but since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It appears that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II."
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real. That point really isn't up for debate. Heterogenous > Homogenous. They only said it wouldn't change because they were so busy with other stuff and foolishly thought it didn't matter.
Also, to be clear: The problem is not deathballs. The problem is hyper-concentrated deathballs (in terms of map space taken up).
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real.
Do you have any statement by them to back this claim up?
No, but they'd have to be unbelievably myopic. Not even I can fathom otherwise. And I've made dozens of posts on specific shortcomings/weaknesses they have. I dunno, I guess it's possible....
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real.
Do you have any statement by them to back this claim up?
Yeah I think he made that up. Id love it if they tought that way, but judging from the numerous Dustin Browder interviews I got the impression they dont. "We will never make the pathing worse"
On July 07 2012 07:59 StackerTwo wrote: a copy and paste of my post in the Modified Movement Thread.
I firmly believe that mm, will not change the deathball; nor would limited selection in control groups.
MM would make the death ball easier to presplit, and collapse. but it does not change the NEED to match deathball with deathball;
limited control groups, makes it more difficult to control, but again it does not change the need for deathballs. 12 marines vs 12 stalkers? 12 lings vs 12 hellions? how many hotkeys do you need to control 100lings, and 50 banes? would this limitation be imposed on buildings? zerg has what 5-8 base+upgrade buildings, while t&p has 12+ rax/fac/star, gate/robo/star
what could possibly change the death ball would be some way to make any excess unit give reduced return. example: why do players not make 60 workers on 1 base? because pass the point of full saturation there is no return on investment.
have you ever seen a 20 thor composition? why? because the way thor collision works only a certain number can "fit" in a concave(i assume the warhound will have the same issue), the rest will be walking around until a "parking spot" opens up.
but then again... changing collision would really throw off any balance that we still have. how many of each unit should/could fit in a reduced engagement?
Yes it appears MM doesnt automatically fix the Deathball. However MavercK is testing a movement modification for his SC2BW map
while it looks funky and cool the way units move, there is no way blizzard would let this pass. For aesthetic purpose
Blizzard's design team understands that more dynamic spacing is more interesting and real.
Do you have any statement by them to back this claim up?
No, but they'd have to be unbelievably myopic. Not even I can fathom otherwise. And I've made dozens of posts on specific shortcomings/weaknesses they have. I dunno, I guess it's possible....
Its not that clear cut. Even in this thread you have three or four competing arguements about why death balls occur.
And apparently the lead programmer of warcraft 1 thought they are caused by unlimited unit selection
How about less income? Making tech paths a risk (i.e cant just for example go from gassing up a bunch of sentries early game and switch to high templar right away)? How about bases being really hard to secure?
people who wish more micro intensive units and blame DB and Blizz for bad game design have no idea what they're talking about. Arguing about HOTS balances before the beta is out is a whole lot of speculative fancy from armchair game designers, anybody who wants to go back to the good ole glory days of BW are free to do so you know.. except SC2 is way better even with its 'deathball'. Admit it, if it sucked so bad the way so many people are posting on the forum, why play it. Go play D3, then you'll know that SC2 is the best game Blizz has on the table to date.
On August 02 2012 10:50 Rambolav wrote: How about less income? Making tech paths a risk (i.e cant just for example go from gassing up a bunch of sentries early game and switch to high templar right away)? How about bases being really hard to secure?
Uhm... no? That would push the game to be mostly about one base play and just massing up a quick army in the early game. Would be much like PvP a few months ago where the first player to try and expand typically lost.
Less income is a possibility, those 6m maps had some popularity (though I think the idea has died out a bit since it's pretty clear Blizz wont implement a change like that) and it's an interesting idea. But again it has to be done carefully so that one can still play for the late-game (which is what leads to the most dynamic play and strategies).
Unlimited unit selection, or at least up to 500 (was 255 really not enough?), along with the improved pathing and very close unit collision are the primary reasons that deathballs are prominent. Unit design like the Colossi also doesn't help.
I'm glad Blizz has some plans to try and split up the deathball, but I'm not convinced their plans will make the impact we all hope they will. Hopefully time will show otherwise.
On August 02 2012 11:42 ncsix wrote: people who wish more micro intensive units and blame DB and Blizz for bad game design have no idea what they're talking about. Arguing about HOTS balances before the beta is out is a whole lot of speculative fancy from armchair game designers, anybody who wants to go back to the good ole glory days of BW are free to do so you know.. except SC2 is way better even with its 'deathball'. Admit it, if it sucked so bad the way so many people are posting on the forum, why play it. Go play D3, then you'll know that SC2 is the best game Blizz has on the table to date.
Its one thing to argue over balence for a game that's beta hasn't even been released yet, but thats not the point of the thread is to discuss what direction the units are taking the game in and what mechanic's they encourage to do so. I think its worth discussing the possibilities of how the game may be played or what blizzard is trying to fix or focus on.
On August 02 2012 10:50 Rambolav wrote: How about less income? Making tech paths a risk (i.e cant just for example go from gassing up a bunch of sentries early game and switch to high templar right away)? How about bases being really hard to secure?
Uhm... no? That would push the game to be mostly about one base play and just massing up a quick army in the early game. Would be much like PvP a few months ago where the first player to try and expand typically lost.
Less income is a possibility, those 6m maps had some popularity (though I think the idea has died out a bit since it's pretty clear Blizz wont implement a change like that) and it's an interesting idea. But again it has to be done carefully so that one can still play for the late-game (which is what leads to the most dynamic play and strategies).
Unlimited unit selection, or at least up to 500 (was 255 really not enough?), along with the improved pathing and very close unit collision are the primary reasons that deathballs are prominent. Unit design like the Colossi also doesn't help.
I'm glad Blizz has some plans to try and split up the deathball, but I'm not convinced their plans will make the impact we all hope they will. Hopefully time will show otherwise.
How does that make any sense? Wouldn't the proposition of having less minerals provided by one base make it a more necessary risk to expand??? Plus your opponent would have less income to punish that expand. But before we get into that argument first you must discuss the many ways there would be to go about this. They could take away mineral patches, minerals returned, or just have less minerals at each patch. Personally I would say that taking 1 mineral patch away from every base in the game would be something to look into.
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.
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.
On August 02 2012 10:50 Rambolav wrote: How about less income? Making tech paths a risk (i.e cant just for example go from gassing up a bunch of sentries early game and switch to high templar right away)? How about bases being really hard to secure?
Uhm... no? That would push the game to be mostly about one base play and just massing up a quick army in the early game. Would be much like PvP a few months ago where the first player to try and expand typically lost.
Less income is a possibility, those 6m maps had some popularity (though I think the idea has died out a bit since it's pretty clear Blizz wont implement a change like that) and it's an interesting idea. But again it has to be done carefully so that one can still play for the late-game (which is what leads to the most dynamic play and strategies).
Unlimited unit selection, or at least up to 500 (was 255 really not enough?), along with the improved pathing and very close unit collision are the primary reasons that deathballs are prominent. Unit design like the Colossi also doesn't help.
I'm glad Blizz has some plans to try and split up the deathball, but I'm not convinced their plans will make the impact we all hope they will. Hopefully time will show otherwise.
How does that make any sense? Wouldn't the proposition of having less minerals provided by one base make it a more necessary risk to expand??? Plus your opponent would have less income to punish that expand. But before we get into that argument first you must discuss the many ways there would be to go about this. They could take away mineral patches, minerals returned, or just have less minerals at each patch. Personally I would say that taking 1 mineral patch away from every base in the game would be something to look into.
Was saying no to this question, "How about bases being really hard to secure?" Read my 2nd paragraph where I agree with you >.<
I think changing unit selection would be an awful idea. That would just annoy and make like 80% of sc2 players a lot worse at this game for no reason. It would actually make a lot of people harass a lot less because you always need your main army hotkeyed so that would leave no hotkeys left for their prism/drop/harss play.
The main thing would be to reduce the minerals/gas at every base. Give each race stronger harassing units. Give races units that work alone in a raiding type style.
In the end though I don't think deathballs are a big deal. It's a game where you build an army and fight the other person's army. Of fucking course people are going to mass an army and keep that army in a "ball". Strength in numbers .....
On August 02 2012 11:42 ncsix wrote: people who wish more micro intensive units and blame DB and Blizz for bad game design have no idea what they're talking about. Arguing about HOTS balances before the beta is out is a whole lot of speculative fancy from armchair game designers, anybody who wants to go back to the good ole glory days of BW are free to do so you know.. except SC2 is way better even with its 'deathball'. Admit it, if it sucked so bad the way so many people are posting on the forum, why play it. Go play D3, then you'll know that SC2 is the best game Blizz has on the table to date.
You are more of a Battlenet forums kind of guy. Your contribution will be appreciated there. Here people are just gonna troll you cos they dont understand!
Unlimited Unit Selection is likely the cause of the Deathball, but don't you think it's more because of the current skill level of SC2 players? Possibly in 2-3 years, the skill level will obviously be alot higher than today and probably by then, a giant Deathball will be considered low level play while the pros of tomorrow will be positioning all their units across the whole map like in BW.
On August 03 2012 04:51 NAPoleonSC wrote: Unlimited Unit Selection is likely the cause of the Deathball, but don't you think it's more because of the current skill level of SC2 players? Possibly in 2-3 years, the skill level will obviously be alot higher than today and probably by then, a giant Deathball will be considered low level play while the pros of tomorrow will be positioning all their units across the whole map like in BW.
I don't agree, spreading out and getting all your units to attack at once will definitely become the thing of the future but using an inefficient amount of units to deal damage only works on buildings or units that are being controlled poorly.
The fact of the matter is that a 200/200 ball is X as opposed to 12 units being X. If you are using less units in the former to try and do damage on the army then the 200/200 ball will just destroy them unless they are ranged. Range is really the only thing that lets you do damage on the ball with less units without losing everything(which might be the reason why the newer units are all extremely long ranged units).
It is possible to split units LIKE BW, sure, but it won't be as successful as in BW because BW was designed around that inefficiency. It was a limit that made armies look bigger, and made it so that a lot of units had to be controlled well to do damage together.
I'm not one to talk like I know anything about BW but thinking about game design it just makes sense if you don't want those deathballs happening. Just make it harder to have a deathball, they will still be there but only the better player can use them. Now you have made a game of skill.
Strangely makes sense when you think about it. The games industry has been going crazy lately with destroying all the limits of the older games. Take BF3 for example where unlimited sprint destroys the effect that limited sprint had in BF2/2142. Instead of having "Walking speed" And "Sprint", Now there is "Sprinting" and "walking speed" sprinting is the standard thing while walking speed is something you want to avoid. The effect of that shrunk all the maps and made everything feel smaller than it actually was(along with bad map design). Limits help games and make them what they are. Destroying limits, destroys games.
just make succesful harassment more rewarding in every stage of the game + more units that are good at harassing. Reward multitasking even more basically. I hope HOTS pulls that off
1.) Dramatically faster reinforcements and mechanics like inject larvae and chronoboost/warpgates.
2.) Insufficient splash damage mechanics to punish big clusters of units.
3.) Dramatically faster and easier economic build-up.
4.) Lack of micro-intensive units and a general abundance of 'dumb' auto-attack type units. This is sort of the 'colossus' problem where there's big catch-all units that counter everything and require no micro. BW was full of units like the reaver and lurker that could cause severe damage but required excellent micro and positioning to cause that damage.
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.
I think if you considerably lowered building health making em die allot faster would help fix the db. Would make you want to poke and prode on the chance to kill your enm production, also making expansions cheaper but way easier to kill would help make things allot more exciting
I think what needs to be done is add more units that are effective outstide of battle. I think that we have to realize that there could be nothing done to fix the deathball situation. I think that adding units like the oracle is a step in the right direction.
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
This is a really good post that makes a lot of sense. If tanks did more damage, it would incentivise Terran to do something with their MM bunches instead of just letting them ball up to a critical mass. Think of ZvZ. Because banelings are so efficient, you can be aggressive with lings while leaving a few banelings at home to play defense. There is always a reason to be poking at your enemy in ZvZ because defense is so efficient.
I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
I dont like the pathing change much but I do think it is interesting that it forces you to be more aware of your unit control and therefore adds another skill element in the game.
I think Blizzard should do some testing on max # of units per control group to find out what would be optimal for viewer enjoyment and general usability for the general player.
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
How do you define interesting? Do you think more volatile gameplay is more interesting? Do you find games where comebacks are a rarity interesting? Do you find games where player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
Personally, I find volatile, comeback-hostile, discouraging scouting with wild swings of resources and huge vision very uninteresting. I find that macro mechanics that promote turtle-til-max very boring. But then again, I suspect that you aren't familiar enough with both games to make that assessment.
I'm glad Blizzard scored casual you to replace hardcore (fan, not player) me, so at least they broke even between the both of us. I've almost given up on Sc2 improving.
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
Great post, agreed 100%...but it just happens that Mr DBro is (for whatever reason) always showing his concern of making "tank lines" too powerful. First he killed positional play and now they are trying to "break the deathball" which they introduced (via terrible game design) in the first place.
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
These mechanics are the exact reason why scouting isn't as nearly important as it is in BW.
Even though if you have scouted their entire base, you will be somewhat in the shadows about their intentions which makes timing attacks less utilized in the game and therefore less aggressive games and more games that require armies snowballing into 200/200 Texas standout style, followed by big battle into GG.
In BW, you have literally actions all over the map. Watch ZerO vs JangBi game 5 for that.
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
I dont like the pathing change much but I do think it is interesting that it forces you to be more aware of your unit control and therefore adds another skill element in the game.
I think Blizzard should do some testing on max # of units per control group to find out what would be optimal for viewer enjoyment and general usability for the general player.
Chronoboost and larva inject and mules do only one thing: They boost the economy and production capability to speed up the game. That doesnt sound bad, but actually it is terrible, because it can make the game hard to handle and rather prone to critical mistakes.
Imagine yourself at the wheel of a race car ... in a city ... with other regular cars on the street ... and you are racing against another guy in a similarly powerful car. If you are a professional race car driver you can handle it, but "normals" will either not use the full potential OR they will cause a crash due to their own inability. That is a bad concept and thus I am fully for getting rid of all those "turbo boosts" for economy and production: MULE, Warp Gate (changed in a way that warping in units can be done but at a cost of increased cooldown), larva inject, Reactor, Chronoboost.
Having a (s)lower economy will make expensive units more important and will urge the players to "use them more carefully" and thus result in games with more strategy instead of the "just a-move them in, because I can reproduce stuff instantly anyways" style we have now. Throw-away-battles are kinda boring to watch, because there is no real strategy involved and the bigger economy/production speed makes too much of a difference (Zerg on 5+ bases vs. anyone else on just 3 = no chance the Zerg will lose). Skill in battle and the right decisions should play much more of a role and should ALWAYS leave room for a comeback.
This is from a forum post from b.net. It was originaly intended for a balance change discusion but the thing I notice is it would solve allot of DB issues.
I eliminated the suggestions that make no sense for this.
Terran
Hunter Seeker Missile - Range increased to 8. Speed increased by 5%.
250mm strike cannons range increased to 8.
Shaped charge upgrades to tanks reduce friendly fire by 75%
Zerg Roach cost increased to 100 minerals 25 gas.
Roach armor increased to 2.
Infestors now spawn 2 infested terran upon death.
Adrenal glands now increases zergling attack speed by 40%. (upgrade)
revert queen buff.
Protoss
Warp gate tech removed from the game.
All protoss gateway units receive a 15% increase in base damage. (upgrade)
Stalker HP and shields increased to 100/100.
Colossus removed from the game. Reaver added. Replaces
Build time for all gateway units decreased by 15% . Khaydarin Amulet added. Increases High Templar starting energy by 25.
Warp prism now has shield battery ability. Increases shield regen of all nearby units by 5 per second. Warp prism now has up to 200 energy. Shield regen costs 25 to activate and drains 5 energy per second.
Ladder Best of 3/5/7 added to 1v1 search. Points won increases accordingly. Automated tournaments added.
Big changes eh? I left the ladder changes cause there so good. Anywho to the explanation
Terran itself is already the less DB ish. The HSM buff becomes a good encouragement for the enm to not group. I believe a better AOE buff so its more effective vs groups. The Thor fix is for a decent reaver counter. Tank fix to be more effective vs upgrade cracklings
Zerg
The roach buff and nerf is to remove there amount om the map but making individualy more effective. using them to poke and prod a effective tactic. As it stands you use roaches to either cheese or max. theres no happy medium.
Infestors cause it be funny.
Ling buff to make them a better raiding unit for mid game before or after mutas pop.
Queen buff to force zerg back to building units at the start of the game.
Overall my hope here is to encourage zerg into attacking and pressuring instead of turtling till max. pvz of 15 min no rush is pretty boring admitidly.
Protoss
The issue with toss is there forced to wait till t3 to have a effective army. PvP is entertaining till a colo pops and the overall skill limit is limited with the colo being so good as it is.
WG removed to increase opurtonities to catch a toss off guard encouraging raiding drops and poking Build time fixed to compensate with wg removal
The attk buff acros gateway units is to replace the wg reaserch and should cost and take bout the same amount of time. This is to give toss the ability to be aggresive early on to encourage poking. raids etc. However the upgrade requirements prevents early zealot 2 shotting lings and balances proxy gate builds. The secondary effect is making ff not required to survive early game. This encourages t&z to be aggresive knowing they cant just get ff forever. I would like ff to become obsolet and damage buff would help towards that goal.
Colo changed to reaver. reaver keeps high bw damage. Similar to hsm damage. Reasoning is theres allot more micro potential in a reaver. makes fights as exciting as watching marine splits vs banes. Make ff placement way more skill based due to how the reaver does damage you cant mindlessly ff a army cause your big aoe becomes useless. I think will see some cool stuf like ff chokes and what not.
Stalker buffed to give it more power vs the buffed roaches. I see map control batles going between the two for the 5 -10 min mark.
Amulet returned. balanced around the lack of wg.
WP is changed to help a toss be more aggresive. it be out of combat only but it be used like how the hots reapers can be used to poke aggresively.
The easiest way to have no db is to have less units on the map. how you do that? have them kill each other before they form a db
How i see these changes working out is each race gains effective methods to be aggresive from the start. Gimicky ff no longer so required. FFE no longer the must use BO. PvP way better with out collo and reintroducing the defenders advantage. Terran has lategame splash to effective counter large groups of unit.
Can people stop talking about it and make custom maps with your idea and get people to play it a few times? Maybe we can find the magic number before blizzard. You can adjust things too guys
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
This is quite an amazing post, because as well giving me somegood info on the rise and fall of competitive halo, It perfect illustrates what has happened between sc1 and sc2.
What are the main differences between scbw and sc2? they have been brought up: unlimited unit selection, general nerf of AOE abilitys due to unit clumping.
Why should a player split up their units? Ideally it should be because either their own units work better alone/ in smaller groups. Or their opponents units will be very cost effective, even in small numbers if you try to push into them. Units that represent this are HT's, infestors, tanks. In short, I believe these units are not doing their job. if you rush 3 tanks with 10 naked zealots, you might lose 1-2 zealots or similarly, 5 lings. Tanks are incredibly better in large groups, such that they are impossible to balance, you cant make 3 tanks good without making 20 tanks OP especially with the "smart tanks" in sc2.
High Templars and Infestors do their job better, but at them moment the game is balanced such that since Terran can not effectively split up their army versus toss or zerg and is forced to attack as a deathball, high templars and infestors must be balanced to be good in these 200/200 battles, but not OP, making them much worse in smaller skirmishes. Thus both teams must deathball.
The Tempest takes a different approach to pulling units out of the deathball. Its incredible range means it doesn't have to physically be in the ball to contribute its fire power. This range is described as more "strategic" than "tactical" giving presence to an entire region of the map
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
These mechanics are the exact reason why scouting isn't as nearly important as it is in BW.
Even though if you have scouted their entire base, you will be somewhat in the shadows about their intentions which makes timing attacks less utilized in the game and therefore less aggressive games and more games that require armies snowballing into 200/200 Texas standout style, followed by big battle into GG.
In BW, you have literally actions all over the map. Watch ZerO vs JangBi game 5 for that.
How exactly do chronoboosts, injects and mules contribute to less scouting and both games require just about the same amount of scouting.
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
That doesn't make sense because if everybody has more powerful units everything equalizes.
What Blizzard should do instead is to increase the size of units soo they can't all shoot at once and so that concaves are more important soo if you hold an important choke you can split of a part of your army and attack.
Why doesn't anyone talk about just making control groups max 12 units again? Or 24? I know it's a huge change and people don't want that, but why not just experiment with it, make it into the ptr server and have a pro tournament with 12 unit control groups, just to see how the game would look. I mean I know it's gonna make it a little harder to play, but when you think about it it's not really making it harder because your opponent has to do the same.
Wow that design quote with the unit limit... seems really awesome. I think obviously if they make the limit for control groups 12, it would solve the deathball problem. But of course it would also be really frustrating to move an entire army if you want that, and casual players may not like that. But what about a unit limit of even 24 or 32 or so? That's not as bad as BW, but it'll still discourage deathball play a little and encourage smaller fights like in BW with harassment everywhere since it's not so efficient to try to move an entire army somewhere.
On August 06 2012 06:15 Ksyper wrote: Why doesn't anyone talk about just making control groups max 12 units again? Or 24? I know it's a huge change and people don't want that, but why not just experiment with it, make it into the ptr server and have a pro tournament with 12 unit control groups, just to see how the game would look. I mean I know it's gonna make it a little harder to play, but when you think about it it's not really making it harder because your opponent has to do the same.
Great point. Your opponent has to deal with it too! It will give more incentive to fight smaller but more numerous battles. Then, if someone decides to move their entire army, it will be that much more exciting/dramatic/climatic.
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
These mechanics are the exact reason why scouting isn't as nearly important as it is in BW.
Even though if you have scouted their entire base, you will be somewhat in the shadows about their intentions which makes timing attacks less utilized in the game and therefore less aggressive games and more games that require armies snowballing into 200/200 Texas standout style, followed by big battle into GG.
In BW, you have literally actions all over the map. Watch ZerO vs JangBi game 5 for that.
How exactly do chronoboosts, injects and mules contribute to less scouting and both games require just about the same amount of scouting.
On August 03 2012 12:13 dgwow wrote: I actually think that SC2 does have some qualities that are better than BW. BW has useless mechanics like sending workers to mine whereas SC2 has cool mechanics like chronoboost/inject larva/mules that are more interesting.
I dont like the pathing change much but I do think it is interesting that it forces you to be more aware of your unit control and therefore adds another skill element in the game.
I think Blizzard should do some testing on max # of units per control group to find out what would be optimal for viewer enjoyment and general usability for the general player.
Chronoboost and larva inject and mules do only one thing: They boost the economy and production capability to speed up the game. That doesnt sound bad, but actually it is terrible, because it can make the game hard to handle and rather prone to critical mistakes.
Imagine yourself at the wheel of a race car ... in a city ... with other regular cars on the street ... and you are racing against another guy in a similarly powerful car. If you are a professional race car driver you can handle it, but "normals" will either not use the full potential OR they will cause a crash due to their own inability. That is a bad concept and thus I am fully for getting rid of all those "turbo boosts" for economy and production: MULE, Warp Gate (changed in a way that warping in units can be done but at a cost of increased cooldown), larva inject, Reactor, Chronoboost.
Having a (s)lower economy will make expensive units more important and will urge the players to "use them more carefully" and thus result in games with more strategy instead of the "just a-move them in, because I can reproduce stuff instantly anyways" style we have now. Throw-away-battles are kinda boring to watch, because there is no real strategy involved and the bigger economy/production speed makes too much of a difference (Zerg on 5+ bases vs. anyone else on just 3 = no chance the Zerg will lose). Skill in battle and the right decisions should play much more of a role and should ALWAYS leave room for a comeback.
The stupidity...
Ohh well I'll dissect your post anyway. You are basically saying that Blizzard should remove Injects, chronos and mules because low level players don't use them often enough.
WELL
That's stupid because this is supposed to be a skillful game. I agree with the fact that slower economy would be good, but there are much better alternatives like decreasing the amount each worker brings or increasing the time that it takes a worker to mine a mineral or simply decreasing the amount of minerals in each mineral line.
Now back to the part where you wanted to dumb down the game even more. Do you know that in Brood war (and yes like 99.99% of people Teamliquid already know this) you had to individually tell each worker to go mine after it spawned. Did that mean that the ''normals'' (whatever that means) were left behind in certain situations? YES and that is what it made it such a good game (and many other similar mechanics that operated in this way).
If the game wasn't about macroing for the first 10 minutes and getting to 200/200 balls, there deathball wouldn't be a problem. Give players a way to pressure in small engagements and the deathball obsession becomes less of a problem because it becomes a lot harder to get a deathball without showing super good engagement skills throughout the rest of the game. I don't mind if 30 minute games end with a big ball vs ball clash. It's not ideal, but I can handle that as long as it's not the only major battle of the game, and as long as it doesn't happen every single game without fail.
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
That doesn't make sense because if everybody has more powerful units everything equalizes.
What Blizzard should do instead is to increase the size of units soo they can't all shoot at once and so that concaves are more important soo if you hold an important choke you can split of a part of your army and attack.
That isnt true. what he is proposing is when you leave 3 tanks back at home, instead of killing 3 zealots like they do now, they actually kill their cost or even, this might be crazy, alot more than their cost. the fact is we need, and specifically terran needs, units that are strong on the defensive, and above all, EFFECIENT defenders, even when they are small in numbers. If you simultaneously buff HT's tanks and infestors, it wouldnt equalize, the game would be completely different.
i heavily believe this threads so touted "deathball problem" is a non-issue
the deathball is a ""problem"" in PvP (collossi) and ZvZ (roach/infestor) and even LATEGAME TvT
i say ""problem"" because since its a mirror matchup, who cares. I dont think theres deathball problems in TvZ, TvP, and ZvP
sure, sometimes it may SEEM like ZvT and ZvP has a deathball problem, but imo thats just because the matchups havnt been truly mapped out yet. Watching modern ZvP with HERO the last few weeks has shown TONS of harassment around the entire map. Yeah theres a final battle normally with a deathball, but that has a place as well and i dont think its that much of a problem. Normally in the deathball battle there still is harassment around the map as well
the only reason theres no deathballs midgame TvT is because siege tanks unit mechanics make them siege up to hold a position in a powerful manner.
lategame TvT is definitely a deathball. lategame boxer vs rain at mlg or MVP vs some terran in the GSL semi finals (cant remember his name) comes to mind (mass seeker missile / viking / BC deathballs both games)
all of these balance ideas people are making about removing collossi, buffing gateway units, buffing tanks, etc... I think its all hogwash. I think so far what ive seen in the TvP and ZvP and TvZ matchups the deathball problem is something that stems from poor play from players. Watch one of taejas recent TvZ or TvP games and say theres a deathball problem still. i think now finally players are reaching incredibly high levels and really showing what the matchups have to offer
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
The thing is though that those things are not all that beneficial or groundbreaking so even if you could it wouldn't give you a very huge advantage.
If you want to end deathball syndrome, you need to give every race access to ridiculously strong AoE. Protoss needs a Storm that's potent against Tanks, Zerg needs a Swarm Host that can fire Banelings and the return of Plague, and Terran needs Siege Tanks strong enough that they kill their cost in enemy units before they ever come under fire. AoE like this means that suddenly, players are being punished harshly for clumping their units up into deathballs. If a player tries to deathball their way through a game, then suddenly they'll find their army decimated by 1/5 of the enemy army while the other 4/5 is killing their third. Players become encouraged to split off units, because clumping them up means everything's gonna die.
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
The thing is though that those things are not all that beneficial or groundbreaking so even if you could it wouldn't give you a very huge advantage.
but you're wrong, very very wrong.
go back playing or idolizing broodwar, it is getting tired replying to idiots who thinks games like sc2 have low skill ceiling. You got nothing to base your accusation and assumptions on beside personal grudges and misled opinions.
I guess the only difference between MVP, who used to run rampart with over 75% winratein all match ups and maintained over many months during his prime (higher than almost all broodwar pros), and someone like incontrol with not even 40% winrates is just cases of severe good luck.
What might also be a problem is the mobility. The deathballs, especially in TvP, are so mobile that you can actually defend your bases even if they're spread out.
I wish Blizzard would just create units that are extremely cost efficient in certain positions, like many others have mentioned. Who cares that they'll have to bring some more BW units back? It won't be the "BW 2.0" they're so afraid of.
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
The thing is though that those things are not all that beneficial or groundbreaking so even if you could it wouldn't give you a very huge advantage.
but you're wrong, very very wrong.
go back playing or idolizing broodwar, it is getting tired replying to idiots who thinks games like sc2 have low skill ceiling. You got nothing to base your accusation and assumptions on beside personal grudges and misled opinions.
I guess the only difference between MVP, who used to run rampart with over 75% winratein all match ups and maintained over many months during his prime (higher than almost all broodwar pros), and someone like incontrol with not even 40% winrates is just cases of severe good luck.
I didn't mention broodwar in my post, I didn't mention him talking about the skill cap being low either, I don't think it's low, it's already very high.
I wouldn't mind it being higher and not only through theoretical inhuman actions like perfect micro which will never happen because it will never be worth focusing 100% of your time on that when you could be macroing and other more beneficial things even if you could humanly do it.
On August 06 2012 06:51 Meatloaf wrote: Infestor , colossus , roach , marauder are the problem of this game IMO.
the additions proposed for HOTS look nice and im happy with them besides the warhound (that is a mech marauder...).
I play protoss and god knows i hate the colossus the most , fckin boring unit as spectator and player.
Don't forget the sentry.
So much is designed around the sentry making all protoss units too weak to handle roaches or marauders making FFs a must or else you die. At first you might go "WAIT THAT IS SKILLFUL", albeit while that might be true is it necessary to take units out of the battle? Doesn't that mean the game is imbalanced? If a strategy is reliant on taking units out of the battle, is that not based on hope?
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
Just because someone hasn't reached the skill ceiling doesn't mean the skill vs reward graph doesn't flatten out greatly as skill increases. In BW, the opposite was true.
player A is twice as fast as his opponent but cannot translate that agility into anything meaningful because of a low skill cap interesting?
When has this ever happened? Nobody has reached the skill ceiling, nobody. There's still so much more the faster players could be doing yet they don't.
The thing is though that those things are not all that beneficial or groundbreaking so even if you could it wouldn't give you a very huge advantage.
but you're wrong, very very wrong.
go back playing or idolizing broodwar, it is getting tired replying to idiots who thinks games like sc2 have low skill ceiling. You got nothing to base your accusation and assumptions on beside personal grudges and misled opinions.
I guess the only difference between MVP, who used to run rampart with over 75% winratein all match ups and maintained over many months during his prime (higher than almost all broodwar pros), and someone like incontrol with not even 40% winrates is just cases of severe good luck.
any game that doesn't have turn based play has an unlimited skillcap.
Always find it amusing how people go on about limited unit selection as if it would magically fix the game. Methinks some people are lost in a haze of nostalgia here rather than thinking it through. The most likely thing to happen is instead of one control group with all the marines in and the army all in one lump there'll be four or five control groups with marines in and the army all in one lump. Control groups aren't going to change how the units move and ball up and certainly isn't going to change the fact that a huge ball of marines is the most effective formation of them because of the INSANE DPS output of it. As the game currently stands if you want to you can do the same spreading with one control group as you can with multiple control groups...people just don't have a reason to do so. So instead they'll be deliberately balling up rather than the game doing it for them and I don't think thats what we're aiming for.
I'm in the "AoE isn't strong enough" camp myself. AoE units aren't strong enough to zone out areas of the map sufficiently well by themselves and to act as defensive positions. If you look at RTS on slightly different game engines like CoH or DoW2 you are able to effectively lock-down specific positions on the map with bunkers, turrets, set up teams, artillery, etc etc. This allows you to hold onto areas of the map by reinforcing them with defences which are obscenely cost-efficient, meaning if your opponent tries to take it in a frontal assault they're going to take enough losses to put you way ahead. This allows you to take most of your forces elsewhere whilst still holding ground with a smaller force which will make an enemy pay dearly if they try to take it in a direct confrontation.
In SC2 you don't have that. A couple of tanks and a dozen marines aren't cost-efficient enough to take down their own supply in upgraded chargelots if they're defending a base, leaving a Colossus to defend a base is just throwing away resources considering how vulnerable they are, and so on. About the only things approaching the necessary cost-efficiency are HTs and moreso Infestors. But frankly storms don't deal enough damage to get scared about unless you're marching stimmed marines or zerglings into them and fungal is only really good because you can chain it or hit them with banelings too. And because they're caster units you're just as likely to lose them before they can even do damage because they'll get sniped. Defending positions and zoning out is something balanced on a knife-edge as a result of this meaning defending in small groups is essentially more risky than attacking.
If a Colossus and three or four zealots was a genuinely scary thing to try to do a zergling runby against...if two tanks and a small group of marines and marauders was enough to deal heavy casualties to a frontal zealot attack...if a couple of banelings and roaches made anything short of a triple drop a risky prospect...then you'd see more units split out from their "safety ball". But as it stands trying any of that is basically just donating units for free, because the AoE isn't scary enough to make the opponent think anything other than "oh look...free gas units!"
TL;DR: It should be riskier, require more effort and more of a unit commitment to attack into an entrenched position than to defend one. This isn't currently the case due to weak AoE. Hence making breaking off units to defend areas largely pointless. Change this and the Deathball gets smaller as people find it more useful to break their army up to defend positions.
personally, i'd wish that high-ground positions were just more valuable.. but i'm very unsure about that. there are always builds and strategies that require less of a person in terms of skill or practice in order to perform. i would like for there to be good options against those strategies--many of which have yet to be discovered.
sometimes it really just comes down to your scouting ability. it is very, very difficult to punish different openers in sc2 without committing a good amount.
the new units so far in HotS are mostly higher tech (especially for protoss). protoss' situation will probably not change, but their options are increased even more for the mid-to-late game. i'm interested in how terran will look months after the expansion's release.
You know, something moderately thread worthy I thought of was... Why do they try to make RTS games "FUN" anymore?
I mean, in terms of ESPORTS value, actual normal player fun value shouldn't be much of a priority in the traditional game theory sense. Instead of creating a feeling of wide eyed fun in the play, they should instead be attempting to create gratification from success in level of play.
I know that's what I feel when I get a good win, the feeling of "Hot damn I just SMOKED that guy with my point field + storm" or "I just thought a step ahead of him"... not really eye popping smile inducing fun, more the "tilt your head back and sigh a sigh that felt like it took a full 40 minutes of PvZ to release".
Now that I look back on my post I realize that... double entendre.
On August 06 2012 11:05 ShatterZer0 wrote: You know, something moderately thread worthy I thought of was... Why do they try to make RTS games "FUN" anymore?
I mean, in terms of ESPORTS value, actual normal player fun value shouldn't be much of a priority in the traditional game theory sense. Instead of creating a feeling of wide eyed fun in the play, they should instead be attempting to create gratification from success in level of play.
I know that's what I feel when I get a good win, the feeling of "Hot damn I just SMOKED that guy with my point field + storm" or "I just thought a step ahead of him"... not really eye popping smile inducing fun, more the "tilt your head back and sigh a sigh that felt like it took a full 40 minutes of PvZ to release".
Now that I look back on my post I realize that... double entendre.
because if the game is not fun, players won't play it. I sure hope that any games that have set to capture the long term success in professional gaming, the basic 'fun'dation would have to be that players first enjoy the toy at hand and then innovate its usage for appeasement of the audience.
the deathball will not be broken up until either a bw player abuses the fact that they know how to harass in multiple locations effectively, or players figure out on their own that they can do small attacks at certain locations without doing a lame all in. As it stands, most of the players that play sc2 only have the mechanics needed to make an army and not really have to do anything outside of that. The way that sc2 is built allows this. Im trying to become a player that knows how to use small armies to do multiple things all over the map rather than build a ball of units and hope that I can micro my MMM ball well enough to not die to aoe.
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.
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.
Pretty much what you said, good post. The amount of times I spread all my gateway units out perfectly in anticipation of a 1/1/1 or other tank push, and the second I move in to attack they all RECLUMP is incredibly irritating.
Anyway, my 50 cents on this issue is that I've always thought, from the Protoss PoV the problem is that the units within the deathball move at a very similar speed. It'd be a small but significant change to slow down collosi by a lot for example, make moving with such a ball require repositioning on the like.
If that doesn't work I'd certainly be interested to see Blizz implement some of the UI and pathing changes others have mentioned before me
unlimited unit selection is here to stay, the game must be designed so that using multiple hotkeys for units are significantly rewarding. Right now we just arent seeing that, who wants to 1ta2ta3ta4ta5ta when you can prespread and 1ta , get it done with with a lower risk of error and faster speed.
Doubt sc2 will ever reach that with the current balance team though
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.
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 11:15 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 11:20 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.
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 01:01 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 00:23 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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
SC2 needs this kind of spacing (taken from this thread Dynamic Unit Spacing), Then deathballs will dissipate and splash can get way stronger and have more variance in the result. It's also more exciting because armies feel bigger and battles more epic.
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.
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
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=53514
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.
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=53514
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.
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.
Its NOT the 12 unit cap *sigh*
If you have BW with unlimited unit cap, it will still plays out beautifully and properly be more action packed too with their insane amount of harass units.
The problem lies in the unit. In Brood War, every units have multiple usage attached to them while StarCraft 2's units does what the game describe them to do. And then that's when interesting battle dynamics starts to form with a lot real time micro intensive decisions to take place.
Its like StarCraft 2 gives you around 4 options of what you can do with the units while in Brood War, you'll have like 10 or more.
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.
Its NOT the 12 unit cap *sigh*
If you have BW with unlimited unit cap, it will still plays out beautifully and properly be more action packed too with their insane amount of harass units.
The problem lies in the unit. In Brood War, every units have multiple usage attached to them while StarCraft 2's units does what the game describe them to do. And then that's when interesting battle dynamics starts to form with a lot real time micro intensive decisions to take place.
Its like StarCraft 2 gives you around 4 options of what you can do with the units while in Brood War, you'll have like 10 or more.
Ok, that's another theory go try Bw with unlimited unit selection or vice versa make sc2 units more power full/as you see fit. Make a map, see if it breaks up the deathball like you say. Then get some replays and show the world.
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.
Its NOT the 12 unit cap *sigh*
If you have BW with unlimited unit cap, it will still plays out beautifully and properly be more action packed too with their insane amount of harass units.
The problem lies in the unit. In Brood War, every units have multiple usage attached to them while StarCraft 2's units does what the game describe them to do. And then that's when interesting battle dynamics starts to form with a lot real time micro intensive decisions to take place.
Its like StarCraft 2 gives you around 4 options of what you can do with the units while in Brood War, you'll have like 10 or more.
The limited unit selection IS part of the reason why BW has more strategic gameplay for the simple reason that it prevents the deathball ... even if the ground units didnt have their clunky collision movement. BW with unlimited unit selection will just end with huge air battles and whoever maxes his airforce of Mutas or anti-Mutas first will win. The importance of harrassing ends (speak: is reduced to very limited effect) the moment you can form the deathball, because the defender does NOT have a big enough defenders advantage to make up for the attacker hitting him in one strategic position.
You NEED a defenders advantage to discourage the deathball and Siege Tanks, Lurkers and Colossi (Reavers are much fairer=better because of their slow speed and inability to cliffwalk) should be the core of any defensive setup. Sadly SC2 has been balanced on Steppes of War and for the deathball, which resulted in the Siege Tank getting nerfed to the ground and you have to have ALL OF THEM in a fight to stand a chance to survive a full Zerg wave of units ... even though they can replenish any high tech units faster than Terrans. The fact that Zerg can run around a Terran army in circles didnt matter when there was only one attack path available and 12 tanks could cover the center of the map.
infestor BL: this combo only works well when its together, and stops any micro from the opponent
Collsi: only good when in a large group. Remember the last time you saw a collsi drop? Then you have a good memory cause it was in beta.
Do Z/P need these units? definetly yes. The game is pretty damn balanced atm (If terran is korean =P ) but theese units make deathballs perform extremely well.
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.
Its NOT the 12 unit cap *sigh*
If you have BW with unlimited unit cap, it will still plays out beautifully and properly be more action packed too with their insane amount of harass units.
The problem lies in the unit. In Brood War, every units have multiple usage attached to them while StarCraft 2's units does what the game describe them to do. And then that's when interesting battle dynamics starts to form with a lot real time micro intensive decisions to take place.
Its like StarCraft 2 gives you around 4 options of what you can do with the units while in Brood War, you'll have like 10 or more.
The limited unit selection IS part of the reason why BW has more strategic gameplay for the simple reason that it prevents the deathball ... even if the ground units didnt have their clunky collision movement. BW with unlimited unit selection will just end with huge air battles and whoever maxes his airforce of Mutas or anti-Mutas first will win. The importance of harrassing ends (speak: is reduced to very limited effect) the moment you can form the deathball, because the defender does NOT have a big enough defenders advantage to make up for the attacker hitting him in one strategic position.
You NEED a defenders advantage to discourage the deathball and Siege Tanks, Lurkers and Colossi (Reavers are much fairer=better because of their slow speed and inability to cliffwalk) should be the core of any defensive setup. Sadly SC2 has been balanced on Steppes of War and for the deathball, which resulted in the Siege Tank getting nerfed to the ground and you have to have ALL OF THEM in a fight to stand a chance to survive a full Zerg wave of units ... even though they can replenish any high tech units faster than Terrans. The fact that Zerg can run around a Terran army in circles didnt matter when there was only one attack path available and 12 tanks could cover the center of the map.
Yup. Deathballs existed in BW. They were called Protoss Deathballs, or in Korean terms, HanBangRush (한방러쉬). But no other race played like that.
Zergs would send wave after wave to whittle down the deathball, they would lose 1-2 bases but still be ahead economically, and neither side hardly ever reached 200/200. Terran would play positionally to stop the protoss deathball making it very cost efficient despite Terran usually having less economy.
Bad game design makes the best counter to Protoss Deathball == your own deathball. Bad design is bad. The MLG matches were very boring.
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.
Its NOT the 12 unit cap *sigh*
If you have BW with unlimited unit cap, it will still plays out beautifully and properly be more action packed too with their insane amount of harass units.
The problem lies in the unit. In Brood War, every units have multiple usage attached to them while StarCraft 2's units does what the game describe them to do. And then that's when interesting battle dynamics starts to form with a lot real time micro intensive decisions to take place.
Its like StarCraft 2 gives you around 4 options of what you can do with the units while in Brood War, you'll have like 10 or more.
The limited unit selection IS part of the reason why BW has more strategic gameplay for the simple reason that it prevents the deathball ... even if the ground units didnt have their clunky collision movement. BW with unlimited unit selection will just end with huge air battles and whoever maxes his airforce of Mutas or anti-Mutas first will win. The importance of harrassing ends (speak: is reduced to very limited effect) the moment you can form the deathball, because the defender does NOT have a big enough defenders advantage to make up for the attacker hitting him in one strategic position.
You NEED a defenders advantage to discourage the deathball and Siege Tanks, Lurkers and Colossi (Reavers are much fairer=better because of their slow speed and inability to cliffwalk) should be the core of any defensive setup. Sadly SC2 has been balanced on Steppes of War and for the deathball, which resulted in the Siege Tank getting nerfed to the ground and you have to have ALL OF THEM in a fight to stand a chance to survive a full Zerg wave of units ... even though they can replenish any high tech units faster than Terrans. The fact that Zerg can run around a Terran army in circles didnt matter when there was only one attack path available and 12 tanks could cover the center of the map.
Well, the defenders advantage is one way to discourage deathball play. Another one would be that the game had more units that grow "logarithmic" in strength, unlike the hordes of superstrong longranged "exponential" growers in SC2. More splash, more abilities (or other forms of micro) that have to be used for full effect, but you can't in big balls, less range, bigger unit sizes all have an effect to break up deathballs, if used right.
Unlimited unit selection does promote death ball play, however you can remove it and still have death ball play or you can keep it and make some other changes to reduce that. Brood War is so mechanically difficult that the 12 unit limit is really significant, however, if you add it to SC2 then the macro etc. is so easy that this minor mechanical increase in difficulty won't be noticed almost.
Wouldn't one of the more logical and simple solutions be to have more units with some splash damage in them to help dissuade people from death balling? I don't believe multiple unit selection should be removed just to address the problem, it's simply too useful and feels like artificial hampering of the player.
On August 27 2012 17:38 Grumbels wrote: Unlimited unit selection does promote death ball play, however you can remove it and still have death ball play or you can keep it and make some other changes to reduce that. Brood War is so mechanically difficult that the 12 unit limit is really significant, however, if you add it to SC2 then the macro etc. is so easy that this minor mechanical increase in difficulty won't be noticed almost.
Well it won't be noticed by Protoss, because they have so few units. But, It will make Bio much harder to control because of the amount of units. Not to mention alot of the micro involved in Bio that your obligated to do in order to make it effective. And in even worse case, Zergs who make Lings. I don't say Zerg in general, because Blizzard has made Zerg to pretty much be as supply heavy as Protoss in SC2.
Adding this change will affect the visuall appearence of the death ball. But, It doen't change the fact that all we'll see are a few huge engagements. To combat this issue we need to buff splash, and nerf deathball units.
I believe a big part of the problem is SC2 has less rewards for good micro, weaker AOE units in certain situations, less harssment options for some matchups, and to some degree unlimited selection.
We aren't losing unlimited selection, so what can be done otherwise?
Let's take something we already have with no changes to the game to see if you can break up deathballs with the tools the game provides. A perfect example is the infestor with it's very powerful AOE spell, fungal growth, vs. Terran.
The infestor is so great against terrans because it causes Terran to not ball up his marines. This creates more micro, prevents deathballs and it encourages harassment and drop play (naturallyTerran harassment drops are pretty good, too). It's no surprise that many people consider ZvT to be a fun matchup to watch. It has plenty of action and it is rarely over after one battle.
On the flip side, mutas and speedlings are also very good at harassment, which allows Zerg to split up his army and be effective in many matchups.
Protoss AOE is strange. Colossi and high templar are slow moving, which often prevents you from splitting them apart from your ball because they'll be picked off... encouraging a ball. With harassment Protoss seems to be the red headed stepchild, as there are less opportunities to harass.
Is HOTS doing something about this? Recall early in the game will allow Protoss to split armies and harass hopefully. Apparently current Terran is considered non-ball play because they are getting more ball options vs P at least... maybe it will encourage new non-ball play from P. Zerg... they are getting some holes filled in other areas. HOTS is trying, but it needs to try harder... let's see how it goes.
About the Tempest. I don't think anyone will ever build one in a progame :p. Tempests are like the most stupid unit ever invented. Weak, expensive, retarded.
On August 27 2012 23:05 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Wouldn't one of the more logical and simple solutions be to have more units with some splash damage in them to help dissuade people from death balling? I don't believe multiple unit selection should be removed just to address the problem, it's simply too useful and feels like artificial hampering of the player.
More units with splash damage will still result in deathballs ... just the one with better "spread micro" wins. We already have that with the Baneling. The good solution to get rid of the deathball is to "fix" the unit movement to make it POSSIBLE (not mandatory!!!) to move with your units spread out AND to increase the AoE potential of defensive units like the Siege Tank (and the Lurker ... which would be an acceptable unit after the movement change). Protoss dont need a defensive unit and should instead use Forcefields to "shape the battleground to their advantage".
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 .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
rofl are you serious? builds, decision-making, countering, scouting, strategy, tactics build orders to maximize the strats tactics etc etc are the best thing about watching sc2... not some stupid "LAZOORS AND SWARM LIGHTNING IS FUN XDXDXD"-battle. the execution of a lategame battle (unless it's very well thougt out, mindgamed or anything similar to it) is the least interesting to watch because the game is usually over way before "BIG BATTLE OF DEATHKILL" even begins.
I really hope that Blizzard takes this issue seriously (though I doubt they will) because if they don't manage to do something about the death ball I think Starcraft II will lose many spectators, myself included. Spectating WoL is at the moment just a huge yawn, and it's mostly the fault of Collosi, and Infestor + BL. No surprise that PvZ is the most boring MU to watch.
The deathball exists because it's dangerous for most units to venture far away from the base on their own. To some extent the Protoss oracle and mothership core will solve it, but for Protoss the effect is most exaggerated because the colossus can sit on top of other units making a certain size area of units have much more strength in the same amount of space.
On August 28 2012 00:22 labbe wrote: I really hope that Blizzard takes this issue seriously (though I doubt they will) because if they don't manage to do something about the death ball I think Starcraft II will lose many spectators, myself included. Spectating WoL is at the moment just a huge yawn, and it's mostly the fault of Collosi, and Infestor + BL. No surprise that PvZ is the most boring MU to watch.
Bliz IS trying to address this. They are just approaching it all wrong. Worsening the AI and limiting unit selection IS the easiest way to fix this but bliz is adamant on not doing this to make the game more accessible.
Instead they are trying to add units to pull food out of the deathball (like the oracle or even the tempest does this.. its crazy range means you need to control them from a far and away from your deathball). However the hard part is developing a unit that is worth investing your resources / food into for other uses rather than adding more cols or archons or whatever to the deathball. Idon't think the tempest fullfils this like how DwmC_Foefen said.. Oracle def could but you would only realistically need 1 or 2 on the field so its not that much food.. kinda like a warp prism. Window mine is a good example of space controlling units that pulls food from your army.
Were gonna just have to wait and see......
Also on a side note people say that adding limited unit selection is not going to stop the deathball. Yes your correct. The greatest players with the APM will still be able to pull off the deathball. However in lower leagues deathballs arn't gonna be an issue at all.
It'll also GREATLY increase the skill ceiling for the game and will truly separate the pros from the noobs. The great thing in bw is that you need to be smart and fast. You can easily get to D+/C- with 120ish APM but with a solid game sense. You can also hit that with monster APM and no game sense. However what will allow you to push yourself further will be a combo of both raw mechanics and strategy. Having all the knowledge in the world is useless if you can't execute it. And similarly having all the mechanics is moot without knowing what to do with it. Obv this isn't a perfect science but it kinda follows these guidelines
I want it in, but lets be real... bliz is never going to cave.
On August 28 2012 05:02 tehemperorer wrote: The deathball exists because it's dangerous for most units to venture far away from the base on their own. To some extent the Protoss oracle and mothership core will solve it, but for Protoss the effect is most exaggerated because the colossus can sit on top of other units making a certain size area of units have much more strength in the same amount of space.
That unit overlap is a very small part of the death ball problem. It's true that the colossus is the main offender leading to protoss death balls, but it is for an entirely different reason.
The colossus is a super strong unit in the toss arsenal. Most of their other units do very low DPS, and the colossus eclipses almost every one of them, PLUS it has splash. This means that protosses usually need to build them in order to deal with masses of tier one units from the other races.
Now obviously Blizzard is going to put a weakness on a unit with such huge damage potential. But by making the Colossus vulnerable to anti-air attacks, it means that the colossus can never be on the map by itself. And due to the unbelievable DPS of the colossus, the opponent will always be ready to make these air units, whether they are corruptors, mutas, vikings, or even banshees. (In PvP this doesn't happen because stargate units are rather bad for this, and that's why long games become a count of who has the most colossi.)
That means it must always be accompanied by stalkers in order to protect it from air units. And then these stalkers would be massacred by lings/marauders, so you need zealots too. And all of this is to protect the real damage dealer, the colossus.And these balls run rampant because Blizzard chose to make colossi weak to air, instead of making them super slow. This means all of the units move around at respectable pace, so there is barely any micro to keeping the ball together.
I know Blizzard was just trying to come up with a unique weakness for the colossus. But they inadvertently made deathballs a huge problem, because they literally forced protoss to use them. (and don't get me started on how the weakness of the colossus also destroyed the viability of protoss air.)
On August 27 2012 23:05 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Wouldn't one of the more logical and simple solutions be to have more units with some splash damage in them to help dissuade people from death balling? I don't believe multiple unit selection should be removed just to address the problem, it's simply too useful and feels like artificial hampering of the player.
More units with splash damage will still result in deathballs ... just the one with better "spread micro" wins. We already have that with the Baneling. The good solution to get rid of the deathball is to "fix" the unit movement to make it POSSIBLE (not mandatory!!!) to move with your units spread out AND to increase the AoE potential of defensive units like the Siege Tank (and the Lurker ... which would be an acceptable unit after the movement change). Protoss dont need a defensive unit and should instead use Forcefields to "shape the battleground to their advantage".
Maybe a solution would be slower units for more positional play? It seems too many of the units are similar in speed. I'm a Protoss player but the Colossus isn't that much slower than the rest of the army - perhaps it should be slowed down a little more but slightly buffed in HP to promote a more seige tank like play from the unit?
The deathball isn't a result of the balance of the units in the game, it's merely the way the game is played, and intended to be played. You want an amazing army. That's the point of RTS. The goal is to get there. Simply adding units to prolong getting there won't deter the end result. I really don't see the point of these silly discussions.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Lovedrop/tsl3/finals/g7p4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sc2.gamingfeeds.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/6/files/HLIC/ec64ca8ec3743e950d0cd715487de2e4.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/b/bb/Phoenix.gif)
).
