EPTModified Movement Test - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
There will obviously be balance shifts when gameplay values are changed. Nobody is claiming otherwise. This thread is about the effect these changes have on the clarity and spectator-friendliness of SC2. | ||
HaN-
France1919 Posts
| ||
|
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
|
Darneck
Sweden1394 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:34 Wrathsc2 wrote: I personally like how units clump up. it rewards players that split well . If units automatically moved like they did in the video then splash would have to be buffed and it would just lead to too many changes. I say keep it the way it is. You wanna have a deathball? Fine. Eat EMP, STORM, and FUNGAL. Splash would be buffed, splitting would still take the same skill and you would still have to split as much in the heat of battle with an increased radius and storm, emp, fungal would be even more dangerous to people staying clumped up like it should be. | ||
|
ptrpb
Canada753 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:30 Qwyn wrote: Hmm, at the same this isn't really the core of SCII. This is a deliberate decision that can be changed quite easily by someone. Takes a minute in the galaxy editor. It's ugly - makes a lot of sense from a spectator point of view, and some from the player's POV as well. A lot of times units in SCII just ball up in a giant clusterfuck and you can't tell what the hell is going on. It's horrible to watch from a spectator's POV. It's also a pain in the ass to deal with from a player's POV as well, when situations arise. Most often with protoss dball. it's ugly is an opinion, personally i dont have any problem with it, i don't find it ugly and i don't know anyone who plays that does as for clumping not being a core mechanic think about how much the game has to change if this would to be implemented banelings, colossi, tanks, ghosts, ravens, infestors, high templars. all of these units get affected because of aoe changes then you think about how much it takes away from concave creation, splitting micro, and effective micromanagement it's killing a part of SC2 that makes it what it is frankly i find it disgusting that the OP admits that he doesn't watch SC2 currently, isn't a high level player, and is trying to push this for reasons coming from aesthetics. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:37 ptrpb wrote: it's ugly is an opinion, personally i dont have any problem with it, i don't find it ugly and i don't know anyone who plays that does as for clumping not being a core mechanic think about how much the game has to change if this would to be implemented banelings, colossi, tanks, ghosts, ravens, infestors, high templars. all of these units get affected because of aoe changes then you think about how much it takes away from concave creation, splitting micro, and effective micromanagement it's killing a part of SC2 that makes it what it is frankly i find it disgusting that the OP admits that he doesn't watch SC2 currently, isn't a high level player, and is trying to push this for reasons coming from aesthetics. You can't just reject this if you don't understand both games. You're just making stuff up. It is a fact that Starcraft has always been about big armies. This change makes an army of identical supply feel almost twice as big as SC2's current state. That is a fact, as well as an aesthetic principle. Additionally, this means that all splash can get buffed again, map design will be much more forgiving and open, and there will be more variance in splash damage effectiveness, which is very good. | ||
|
FlubbaSet
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
vorxaw
Canada245 Posts
like if SHIFT+rightclick is MM and just rightclick is M SHIFT+A is modified attack move and you can still have regular clumping amove | ||
|
Darneck
Sweden1394 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:37 ptrpb wrote: it's ugly is an opinion, personally i dont have any problem with it, i don't find it ugly and i don't know anyone who plays that does as for clumping not being a core mechanic think about how much the game has to change if this would to be implemented banelings, colossi, tanks, ghosts, ravens, infestors, high templars. all of these units get affected because of aoe changes then you think about how much it takes away from concave creation, splitting micro, and effective micromanagement it's killing a part of SC2 that makes it what it is frankly i find it disgusting that the OP admits that he doesn't watch SC2 currently, isn't a high level player, and is trying to push this for reasons coming from aesthetics. Sigh... Once again... It doesn't take away from splitting and micro, the exact same amount of splitting would still be needed with a proportional increase of AOE radius and it would add more opportunities for the player to micro and control the army rather than a single 1a deathball move, cast fungal here, cast storm there and hope for the best. Weerwolf made a good post in one of the other threads "es, I think it will, but it will also mean multiple other things. I know people hate the reference to Broodwar, but Im going to reference to it anyway for the battles, just so people get some kind of a picture (or can look up a picture ). In Broodwar, there are also some variety of deathballs, for example in TvP. 'Deathballs' will be spread far enough however that there is plenty of room for micro, plenty of room for movement, plenty of room for retreating and making strategic decisions. Because of this, you can actually retreat, without having to lose at least half or 75% of your army which leads to you immediatly losing the game if you went ahead with a deathball vs deathball battle, and lost. (which is the case with the current sc2 deathball vs deathball scenario). However, it changes even more. Because units are more spread out, the damage per second at the moment the armies clash is far less. This is why there is more room for micro, movement and decisions. Another effect, is that smaller armies will be usefull again! Instead of being instantly annihilated by the blob, the army size that is smaller can actually do some damage to the larger army, because not all of the dps of the larger army is at the front of the battle. Smaller armies could still exchange unfavorably, but some units (Like tanks), have more firing time because they will launch a couple of shots, annihilate the first couple of units and be reloaded by the time the rest of the opponents army is near them. In the current situation, tanks fire once or twice, but since all the units are at the front they get overwhelmed within seconds. Because smaller armies are not almost inherently mean a waste of money, it is not useless for a player to attack multiple fronts. this means that the defending player can do two things: 1. Keep his army as a deathball and try to kill each group one by one. This will ofcourse work, and will kill the other army with somewhat of an advantage, but the other small groups still damage his economy. Since the player with the smaller armies all over the map wouldnt gain an immense disadvantage with engaging with smaller forces, he would have an ecomonic lead, still some forces, and could likely win the game. 2. Split up his forces to defend, counter attack, secure ground (yes, securing ground would be a lot more usefull and doable again). Attention of the two players would be needed everywhere, everywhere would need to be micro'd. Even with the new Hearth of the Swarm this would be great, since the new widow mine could secure ground against the smaller forces invading it." | ||
|
Aenur
Germany66 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
 | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
scph
Korea (South)262 Posts
I'd really just prefer if they made unit clumping less compact. I don't know if it's possible though. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
I mean we're not talking about some AI change, were talking about changing the default value for a single variable in the map editor. They could literally update this in under 5 minutes. I'd really like to see what pro's think of this, and see some matches as well. But keep one thing in mind, we DON'T have to wait for blizzard to make changes like this. The community itself must take the initiative. (Look what it's done for maps!!!) If it gets enough support, and someone hosts a tournament with this change, it could get the ball rolling. Especially if it produces better play and matches. If tournaments, and custom games fill up with people playing with this change, and it becomes "the real way to play" Blizzard will have to take notice, and at least it could be a serious consideration for expansions or at least an option for alternative ladders. I think this would be a real buff to all levels of play, with regards to how much they enjoy playing the game. It's not taking anything away, you can still death ball your units, this is just giving you another option! | ||
|
ptrpb
Canada753 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:40 0neder wrote: This, along with dynamic spacing (sticky units instead of 'slippery' units that push each other around, would make SC2 SOOO much better. You can't just reject this if you don't understand both games. You're just making stuff up. It is a fact that Starcraft has always been about big armies. This change makes an army of identical supply feel almost twice as big as SC2's current state. That is a fact, as well as an aesthetic principle. Additionally, this means that all splash can get buffed again, map design will be much more forgiving and open, and there will be more variance in splash damage effectiveness, which is very good. I can reject this having played both games to understand what I like about both wanting to change one of SC2's core principles concerning unit movement literally means that you do not like SC2 and you would rather play a different game. it would be like changing the initial set up of a chess board because you feel that rooks don't get enough flexibility in movement. besides what happens to all of the people who like this clumping mechanic? are we supposed to support this because you want to play a different game? all I've seen typed is opinion after opinion on what would make SC2 better in their opinion. well in that case here's mine. sc2 movement mechanics are fine as they are, play a different game if you disagree. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:51 Reborn8u wrote: A few thoughts, first, it does look awesome, more natural (as you'd expect a real military to move in formation), I REALLY like how faster units are able to move through the formation easier with out going into retard mode and trying to get around units that are only slightly slower than they are. I think it leaves a lot more control options open to the user, and all races would have more micro opportunity. I also think it would look much better for spectating and esports, in a recent interview David kim said they nerfed the thor because having lots of them blocked your view of the army and was "hurting esports". I can't see why this change couldn't happen using this logic. I mean we're not talking about some AI change, were talking about changing the default value for a single variable in the map editor. They could literally update this in under 5 minutes. I'd really like to see what pro's think of this, and see some matches as well. But keep one thing in mind, we DON'T have to wait for blizzard to make changes like this. The community itself must take the initiative. (Look what it's done for maps!!!) If it gets enough support, and someone hosts a tournament with this change, it could get the ball rolling. Especially if it produces better play and matches. If tournaments, and custom games fill up with people playing with this change, and it becomes "the real way to play" Blizzard will have to take notice, and at least it could be a serious consideration for expansions or at least an option for alternative ladders. I think this would be a real buff to all levels of play, with regards to how much they enjoy playing the game. It's not taking anything away, you can still death ball your units, this is just giving you another option! That won't happen. We've yet to see the map makers and tournaments make anywhere close to that kind of a step. The biggest thing I can think of was a watchtower that disappeared after a certain minute mark. And your talking about one value but its a value that completely upsets the balance. The community is innovative and genius but its influence is evolutionary not revolutionary. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:29 Xapti wrote: One problem with this that I could imagine is with using with melee units: Zerglings chasing workers/scouts might not make as many hits due to staying in formation — not quite sure about this though. Does the formation still apply when they have a target acquired? Zerglings vs marines. When stutter-stepping marines the zerglings may have the same issue at dealing damage (if the formation applies when they have an auto-acquired target). This time it wouldn't be circumventable due to manual attacking since there'd be too many marines to manually target. Again not sure if this is an actual issue or not. Something tells me they wouldn't stay in formation, since this would actually affect more than just melee units too They wouldn't stay in formation. That's only for move commands. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 04 2012 05:55 ptrpb wrote: I can reject this having played both games to understand what I like about both wanting to change one of SC2's core principles concerning unit movement literally means that you do not like SC2 and you would rather play a different game. it would be like changing the initial set up of a chess board because you feel that rooks don't get enough flexibility in movement. besides what happens to all of the people who like this clumping mechanic? are we supposed to support this because you want to play a different game? all I've seen typed is opinion after opinion on what would make SC2 better in their opinion. well in that case here's mine. sc2 movement mechanics are fine as they are, play a different game if you disagree. No, they aren't. They're complete shit, easy to change, and the change would undoubtedly improve the game, from both a player's and spectator's perspective. We are trying to change it because we do like SC2. | ||
|
Sufinsil
United States760 Posts
Miss scuttling from C&C. (to be fair infantry were a lot smaller on scale and could have more in one area vs BW) Make this an option per control groups. Other RTS have formation options. | ||
|
ptrpb
Canada753 Posts
On July 04 2012 06:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: No, they aren't. They're complete shit, easy to change, and the change would undoubtedly improve the game, from both a player's and spectator's perspective. We are trying to change it because we do like SC2. the change would undoubtedly improve the game eh? how do you figure that? because it worked well for BW right? like i said, what about people who like the clumping and have gotten used to playing with it? it's a big fuck you to them. | ||
|
Darneck
Sweden1394 Posts
On July 04 2012 06:19 ptrpb wrote: the change would undoubtedly improve the game eh? how do you figure that? because it worked well for BW right? like i said, what about people who like the clumping and have gotten used to playing with it? it's a big fuck you to them. Changes are usually a big fuck you to some people and since HoTS is coming now either way, this would be the time to mix it in. And I feel like most pro gamers should like things that would give them more options and yes this thread is all about opinions, all threads/discussions will always be that. And all of this is of course based on that it would be balanced which I really think it could be. | ||
| ||
