EPTI wish the game was like this.
I'd make moving hearts.
Modified Movement Test - Page 18
| 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. | ||
|
Trozz
Canada3456 Posts
I wish the game was like this. I'd make moving hearts. | ||
|
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:48 Nazza wrote: Presumably, if you can presplit your marines against banelings, you can presplit your banelings against marines? Personally, I think this system is more intuitive... but I'm biased of course. In the same way you say that people should be rewarded for better splitting.... I can say that players should be better rewarded for being able to spot clumped units and storming them, or spotting packs of units and fungalling them etc. Before everything was relatively clumped so you could basically storm anything you liked and it would be cost effective... pesonally, i wouldnt split banelings vs marines unless there are tanks involed. i dont use tanks in tvz. never have, never will. I personally think that banelings are only really good gas dumps vs un upgraded bio (or at least bio behind on upgrades). anyone who has decent micro will split and reduce any baneling hits to a point that it isnt worth making a ton of blings if you arent even or ahead. i feel the same about ultras. they are nice but ultras are only good if you're ahead and in a good position. otherwise, they will either be kited to death or be wasted vs a group of ranged units | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
This isn't the best example, but it's a match in mmDaybreak. Overall gameplay seems very similar, and not extremely different as many thought it would be, but if you look at how armies move and aren't forced to clump everytime you right click somewhere, it's pretty significant. It's much more spectator friendly. Although this game never got to that high of an army count, the armies seemed to look fuller in size. You can even tell in low army numbers when retreating, it doesn't force you to clump. Anyways, this was a match between 2 diamonds I guess(that's the rank I used to be at when I played). I'm definitely rusty, hope you can look past that. Also something to note is that the more open the map, the more obvious the difference would be. I'm just happy the autoballs are gone lol. I felt more in control of my army. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:27 LgNKami wrote: -_- okay lets get this straight. I am a competitive player. If you played bw, you knew how high the skill cap was (and still is) the fact that you attack move your army and they all converge and attempt to occupy the same pixel of occupying the same area is pretty stupid. You telling me that this would lower the skill cap in this game means that you're probably one of the players who sits and lurks and waits until the person you're fighting isnt paying attention, then you attack move your (clumped) banelings into his/her (clumped) army and hope that whoever you're attacking doesnt have any aoe of their own. Same can be said with marines, same can be said with templar; it would be slightly different because I dont see templar dying to tanks but i do see 5-6 of them get emp'd from time to time. When I said it would make the game easier, i also said it would only be easier for lower level players who kinda just know how to build and army and attack move. once you hit a certain level of play though, its a totally different story. players wont have to worry much about accidently walking 50 marines into 4-5 tanks and losing 20 of them in 1/2 a second. The game will require a totally different level of individual micro. well it does and it doesn't. pre-splitting and a-moving could be something lower league players do, which does kind of lower the skill a bit. I mean in WoL, i think splitting marines against banelings is one of the funnest, if not most challenging thing you can do in this game. if you play terran, and I'm assuming you do based on your icon, you know how frustrating it can be to split your army, tell your army to move then have it ball up again, but that's part of the skill, is being able to split again and again and again. However, I DO think this would make the game better overall and a lot more enjoyable. But people would have to relearn how to engage armies, as it would be a different experience and this wouldn't completely eliminate noob tactics. On July 04 2012 13:17 pzea469 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsEffLOnpbI&feature=youtu.be This isn't the best example, but it's a match in mmDaybreak. Overall gameplay seems very similar, and not extremely different as many thought it would be, but if you look at how armies move and aren't forced to clump everytime you right click somewhere, it's pretty significant. It's much more spectator friendly. Although this game never got to that high of an army count, the armies seemed to look fuller in size. You can even tell in low army numbers when retreating, it doesn't force you to clump. Anyways, this was a match between 2 diamonds I guess(that's the rank I used to be at when I played). I'm definitely rusty, hope you can look past that. Also something to note is that the more open the map, the more obvious the difference would be. I'm just happy the autoballs are gone lol. I felt more in control of my army. watching it now, maybe I am proven wrong? even it's diamond play, thanks for sharing. | ||
|
sixonezero
United States9 Posts
This horrible pain in your butt is what makes this game so much harder someone who can split and keep unit separation should be rewarded i.e. trading with banglings efficiently, keeping your broods away from a vortex, getting an "perfect storm"/saving a templar from EMPs I'll give you an example: there was little micro from MVP to keep those BCs separated at all, that won squirtle the game. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
1. All you are doing is changing the game to be more like a game that is not SC2, which in itself is defeatist, you just want another BW, so go play BW, no one is stopping you, if you hate the deathball look, then don't play with it, you can multi-prong harrass and you can play the BW mod in SC2 for funzies with friends. 2. As stated before this would rip the game apart, what there needs to be is an impetus not to ball up, not a mechanic that prevents it BTW: watch any game of BW, the units AI is bad, thats part of what made the game so nostalgic and yes I enjoy watching the pro games. This does not look like BW, goons bunching up and hitting each other and derping up in balls was part of the game, so why is it that you insist on making statements that this movement looks like BW? | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On July 04 2012 13:26 docvoc wrote: In BW the units also clumped lol, the AI pathing was just so bad that they hit each other when moving so they seemed to push apart. The difference is the amount of units you can select at once. If you want to have a less death ball oriented game, you should make it 12-15-20 unit selection lol. Also there were a lot of deathballs in BW but they were just harder to control. You have the option of not fighting with a death ball, you can attack with bits and peices of an army into multiple positions, but there is a reason the death ball is popular and hated and its because its very hard to beat. Also I was ok thinking about this until 2 things occured: 1. All you are doing is changing the game to be more like a game that is not SC2, which in itself is defeatist, you just want another BW, so go play BW, no one is stopping you, if you hate the deathball look, then don't play with it, you can multi-prong harrass and you can play the BW mod in SC2 for funzies with friends. 2. As stated before this would rip the game apart, what there needs to be is an impetus not to ball up, not a mechanic that prevents it BTW: watch any game of BW, the units AI is bad, thats part of what made the game so nostalgic and yes I enjoy watching the pro games. This does not look like BW, goons bunching up and hitting each other and derping up in balls was part of the game, so why is it that you insist on making statements that this movement looks like BW? good luck sending pieces of your army to harass when his main army comes crashing down your door with 200/200 in one selection group. I think that's precisely the problem, it's far too easy controlling a large amount of units, which makes the deathball favorable. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 04 2012 13:26 docvoc wrote: In BW the units also clumped lol, the AI pathing was just so bad that they hit each other when moving so they seemed to push apart. The difference is the amount of units you can select at once. If you want to have a less death ball oriented game, you should make it 12-15-20 unit selection lol. Also there were a lot of deathballs in BW but they were just harder to control. You have the option of not fighting with a death ball, you can attack with bits and peices of an army into multiple positions, but there is a reason the death ball is popular and hated and its because its very hard to beat. Also I was ok thinking about this until 2 things occured: 1. All you are doing is changing the game to be more like a game that is not SC2, which in itself is defeatist, you just want another BW, so go play BW, no one is stopping you, if you hate the deathball look, then don't play with it, you can multi-prong harrass and you can play the BW mod in SC2 for funzies with friends. 2. As stated before this would rip the game apart, what there needs to be is an impetus not to ball up, not a mechanic that prevents it BTW: watch any game of BW, the units AI is bad, thats part of what made the game so nostalgic and yes I enjoy watching the pro games. This does not look like BW, goons bunching up and hitting each other and derping up in balls was part of the game, so why is it that you insist on making statements that this movement looks like BW? BW units did not clump. They moved exactly like they do in this mod (keeping formation) and they also had more of a "personal bubble" around each unit that didn't allow allied units to get too close. Your first point is a terrible point; people don't want BW, they want SC2, and they want SC2 to be better. That's why we're here complaining. As to your second point, this would not rip the game apart. The impetus to not ball up would be adding this and then buffing AoE. You can't buff AoE now to discourage deathball play; everything about unit movement/pathing forces units to clump up and this would make AoE far too powerful due to the fact that it would take exponentially more effort to avoid AoE power than it would be to use it. If you add this change, then you would still need to avoid the power of AoE, but it wouldn't be nearly as hard, so it would be more of a fair trade. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
On July 04 2012 13:29 emc wrote: good luck sending pieces of your army to harass when his main army comes crashing down your door with 200/200 in one selection group. I think that's precisely the problem, it's far too easy controlling a large amount of units, which makes the deathball favorable. especially vs protoss or zerg in whcich as they lose supply, it can almost instantly be replenished and whatever is leftover from the main fight will kill your base while your drop is cleaned up by the follow up wave of zerglings/zealots | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 04 2012 13:26 docvoc wrote: 1. All you are doing is changing the game to be more like a game that is not SC2, which in itself is defeatist, you just want another BW, so go play BW, no one is stopping you, if you hate the deathball look, then don't play with it, you can multi-prong harrass and you can play the BW mod in SC2 for funzies with friends. What if you want to love SC2 but you just find it at best moderatly exciting, but usually boring? The answer isn't play SC2BW or BW. Lots of us barely play SC at all, but we want to WATCH the best RTS game ever played by the smartest players on the planet. If SC2 isn't better than BW, that won't happen, and anything less will be a disappointment and the community will eventually shrivel up and die. What do YOU propose someone in my position does? I got into korean BW in 2009, didn't really play anymore but watched like I was as passionate a sports fan as any. Now SC2 comes out, BW is dead, I want to watch a game as high a calibur but SC2 needs improvements. It's good but not great. So what do I do, just leave the community and quit starcraft spectating altogether? Of course not, I use my design and holistic thinking skills to propose changes in accordance with what most top players and longtime fans think, even if they've given up on them or do not share them to protect their career. On July 04 2012 13:26 docvoc wrote:2. As stated before this would rip the game apart, what there needs to be is an impetus not to ball up, not a mechanic that prevents it First of all, you repeat the absolutely baseless claim that this 'would rip the game apart.' Bullcrap. It would require buffing AoE for over a few months during HotS beta. And the community already knows how to make stable, open maps. Fixing the spacing issue actually would make mapmaking easier and more flexible, because they no longer have to be intricate labyrinths no wider than a deathball at any point. Buffing splash would help, but it still won't help armies feel big and battles more epic. Thus, the solution is to do both. Buff AoE AND make armies natural and more heterogenous. Sidenote: Daybreak is a bad map to show this off, because it's designed to be a map crutch for the poor foundational dynamics of SC2. Try Tal-Darim and get some games with huge confrontations in the middle. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On July 04 2012 13:47 LgNKami wrote: especially vs protoss or zerg in whcich as they lose supply, it can almost instantly be replenished and whatever is leftover from the main fight will kill your base while your drop is cleaned up by the follow up wave of zerglings/zealots The issue here is that the deterrents of deathball play are not strong enough. I am considering the applicability of control group limits. It's 99% a no-go with Blizzard. Higher level AOE = dropping more. Siege tanks set up a strong defense, while drops go out to do damage (just an example. Also, they really should make tanks 2 supply, I mean come on man, wtf. Also marauders 1 supply/appropriate nerf). Frankly there are a lot of things that can be done to make fights last longer. It's frustrating b/c there are so many variables. At the same time you can't make AOE so strong that the game just devolves into mass siege tank v. "lurker" or whatever. (Blizzard would be - stupid - to implement this "shit" host instead of a proper AOE unit for zerg.) Also, maps are a really big part of this. I understand that protoss "needs chokes" to survive, but on the whole maps are just way too chokey. I feel like a buff to gateway units and more open areas would be better to compensate? Argh - I'm going too far, lol. One change at a time. I feel like Blizzard should just lolwut increase splash just to negate DB once and for all (good players will have fantastic space control). There are too many factors. Now we can go into the economy and the issue of fast maxes...all sorts of things. But not in this thread. Sometimes, I think that SCIIdev would have been better using BW as a model and making changes from there. | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
I did like how it looked when they moved around the map and didn't just a-click through chokes. You could definitely see how retreating units had more line formations instead of immediately hugging each other and dieing to aoe. Also you could see how not organizing your army while it moved across the map could make you engage a ball or concave with a straight line, which is really bad for your army dps/strength. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 04 2012 14:04 Qwyn wrote: I understand that protoss "needs chokes" to survive, but on the whole maps are just way too chokey. Yes, Protoss 'needing chokes' throughout the whole map is a symptom of flawed design. If things were done correctly, map design would be easy, and races would be more or less equal in a wide open playing field. You don't just accept the symptoms, you destroy what caused them (bad foundation for gameplay, bad race design) and rebuild correctly. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
It's Dustin's pretext, so I think Blizzard will definitely continue to stick to its clump-up system. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 04 2012 14:23 larse wrote: I already said it many times. Dustin Browder's "deathball because of good pathing" is a pretext. You can have good pathing while no deathball at the same time. And the easiest way to do this is to make the unit stay in their original formation while moving. It's Dustin's pretext, so I think Blizzard will definitely continue to stick to its clump-up system. Yes, but pathing is different from unit friction. Units need to be sticky and not push/slip around. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
I love this. However the game will have to be rebalanced and Blizzard probably is too lazy or too arrogant to change it. | ||
|
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
On July 04 2012 14:18 0neder wrote: Yes, Protoss 'needing chokes' throughout the whole map is a symptom of flawed design. If things were done correctly, map design would be easy, and races would be more or less equal in a wide open playing field. You don't just accept the symptoms, you destroy what caused them (bad foundation for gameplay, bad race design) and rebuild correctly. ever heard of forcefields (aka temporary industructible walls)? | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
the point of a beta is to TEST NEW STUFF. PUSH IT PULL IT TWIST IT JUMP ON IT SHRED IT BURN IT FREEZE IT THROW IT. | ||
| ||
