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.
I'm testing out how matches work with the movement modifed such as in this video.
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.
What it does: It makes units stay in formation when moving them rather than ball up. You can organize your army as you wish and SC2 won't force you into a balled up army. You can still ball up your army if you wish but it is a choice. Armies look more natural as they move around the map. And of course, your army still reacts to their environment, so if things are in the way your army formation will adjust.
This isn't some genius coding or anything, I don't deserve any credit, it's just a number change of a value in the map editor. I'm not the first to find this out either, but I don't think a match has ever been played using this modification.
I tested playing with a friend on a daybreak map i modified and it didn't seem to break anything. However, we're not that pro and honestly we just don't really play or watch anymore. So I'm in need of some players, hopefully masters that know what they're doing to play some competitive matches and upload some replays, and give feedback.
So if you would help me by looking for the MM maps, listed above, on SC2 and playing a match there I would really appreciate it. MM = Modified Movement. I'm really curious as to how competitive matches would change with this modification, if at all.
Goal: To inspire Blizzard into changing SC2's current unit movement. I HATE the ball up effect and this seems to remove that. You can still ball up your units but the game won't force you into that. So if anyone is interested, I'd like people to just play a regular match and upload some replays. It would even be awesome if some pros or streamers could take a moment and try it out and give their thoughts. A match between two pros with their opinions would be amazing.
Look for "DM Unit Tester" for a modified unit tester with this movement. Uploaded by SeiGG
========================================================================== I have no idea whether this might break something since I haven't tested it enough and am honestly not as qualified to test it as players who currently play SC2 actively. I'm also not saying that this is the ultimate solution and that Blizzard should implement exactly what I've done. This might be a good solution, it might fail, but the goal is to get Blizzard to look at this and make some sort of change to unit movement that gives a similar result, whether it's through this type of method or another.
What I did:
"As to what I changed so others can do it too. Click the Data button in the editor. Then go on the Gameplay Data tab. Click on Default SC2 Gameplay Settings. Once clicked, on the right you will see some settings you can change. One of them is Formation Diameter(Mixed). Simply change this value to 50 to achieve what I've done. That's it "
And what needs to be done is indeed convince blizzard to change it but convince them in a way so that they realise it's not making the pathing worse or anything like that which it isn't either way but blizzard seems to love their "The pathing is better in sc2, clumbing is therefore good."
I do agree with you that clumped up armé is bad even in game play. But i guess it's just how it is. If the armé composition doesn't clump up it will be for example a lot harder to fungal or storm? or do EMP with ghosts.
On July 03 2012 18:59 Darneck wrote: Any chance of uploading MMdaybreak to EU?
This is the first time I've published a map so I apologize for not having uploaded it to EU and other regions. I'll try and do that now, hope it's not hard...
On July 03 2012 19:01 SilSol wrote: I do agree with you that clumped up armé is bad even in game play. But i guess it's just how it is. If the armé composition doesn't clump up it will be for example a lot harder to fungal or storm? or do EMP with ghosts.
AOE would just need a buff in area and maybe damage too. I love AOE and it should be OP as hell.
On July 03 2012 19:01 SilSol wrote: I do agree with you that clumped up armé is bad even in game play. But i guess it's just how it is. If the armé composition doesn't clump up it will be for example a lot harder to fungal or storm? or do EMP with ghosts.
This might be true, since the clumping is the reason why they have lower aoe radius in SC2. The radius might need to be increased if units don't naturally clump anymore. Hopefully we get good feedback as to how this affects gameplay as people play the map.
My immediate thought is that the maintained formation shown in the video would significantly reduced the effectiveness of AoE across the board. It looked like you only needed to spread your army once and as long as you had them all selected and didn't go for Terrain they couldn't fit through, they'd maintain the spread. I feel like that'd alleviate the need for more constant unit micro if you're at a level where that's something you do.
2. Like it or not. Changing it will give Blizzard a balance headache of huge proportions. Suddenly the AoE is kinda worthless. MKP doesn't need to even marinesplit vs banelings. His units won't clump up -> problem solved.
This is one of those things that won't change in SC2.
I really don't like the idea of changing something this fundamental to hwo sc2 works at this point in it's development as an ESPORTS.
If something like this should have been implemented it would have had to have been back in beta or before, now, especially with the kespa players coming in, there is so much invested in sc2 as it is now that it would be incredibly unfair to the players to change something as fundamental as how all the units move.
Imagine changing the football used in soccer by making is 25% larger, it's basically that. You can't have a stable Esports scene if the very fundamentals of the game can change with little to no warning, For sc2 to succeed as a sport it needs to be scene as a stable carreer, and large changes like this undermine that.
If the pro's who have been practicing with the current setup for almost two years now wanted a change then fine, but a lot of diamond and master non pros who just want matches to look prettier and force all the pros to relearn the game just so that can happen seems very unfair imo.
It looks much nicer visually, however I believe it can make control a bit harder. That's not a bad thing after all, since pro players have the apm to either put the units in a deathball formation or into any other formation quite easily.
Just hope it won't make stalkers and immortals as stupid as dragoons.
On July 03 2012 19:06 killerdog wrote: I really don't like the idea of changing something this fundamental to hwo sc2 works at this point in it's development as an ESPORTS.
If something like this should have been implemented it would have had to have been back in beta or before, now, especially with the kespa players coming in, there is so much invested in sc2 as it is now that it would be incredibly unfair to the players to change something as fundamental as how all the units move.
Imagine changing the football used in soccer by making is 25% larger, it's basically that. You can't have a stable Esports scene if the very fundamentals of the game can change with little to no warning, For sc2 to succeed as a sport it needs to be scene as a stable carreer, and large changes like this undermine that.
If the pro's who have been practicing with the current setup for almost two years now wanted a change then fine, but a lot of diamond and master non pros who just want matches to look prettier and force all the pros to relearn the game just so that can happen seems very unfair imo.
Just my opinion :p
I agree that something like this should have been back in beta but that's the past and we can't change that anymore. Now's probably a better time than we might ever get. Hots is coming and will change the game quite a bit anyways. The beta is starting soon. So with an expansion and with a new beta state, this is probably the best time to encourage Blizz to look at such a change. It shouldn't change the game THAT much, any practice you get now won't be wasted. There will be new things to learn, I'm sure, but it's really now or wait till LoV beta.
This would be a great change if implemented, but would require a lot of balancing to make AOE units work like they should. Edit: I can't find the map, I searched "MMDaybreak" "daybreak" "mm" and your name on NA and none of them worked. I tested the unit test map and was very pleased with the results. I found that properly splitting an army beats a deathball, while an improperly split one would lose. In some situations (lings against marine), the split lead to a greater surface area leading to the split army doing worse than the deathball, while against banelings the pre-split helped a lot, but was inferior to top quality marine splitting, as with that more marines can fire at once. Overall I think that this will increase the skill cap of the game, and result in better fights. (However there would need to be changes so a player (or at least observers) can zoom out and view the whole battle at once
On July 03 2012 19:08 speknek wrote: Yes current aoe spells would be less effective vs permanently spread out units, thanks detectives. Let's think about less obvious things now.
You shouldn't ignore the showstopping issue just because it's inconvenient.
On July 03 2012 19:10 Adonminus wrote: It looks much nicer visually, however I believe it can make control a bit harder. That's not a bad thing after all, since pro players have the apm to either put the units in a deathball formation or into any other formation quite easily.
Just hope it won't make stalkers and immortals as stupid as dragoons.
The value change doesn't affect movement AI, just the target location for each unit relative to the group command.
On July 03 2012 19:15 sOda~ wrote: but marine splitting is like the only cool thing in sc2
Spreading out your units via this method is OPTIONAL and you can still have the same clumped up Deathball as ever. It isnt called deathball for nothing, because it is still the most concentrated firepower per area you can have. Any defender will be at a disadvantage if he doesnt do it as well simply because you can kill off part of your opponents (spread out) army with your deathball and superior firepower.
To make a long story short: Without adjusting AoE damage (and radius) upwards dynamic unit movement doesnt matter ... except for feeling much more natural.
If someone could help me publish the map for other regions, I'd appreciate it. I have no idea how to go about that, but it seems that I'd need to actually have another account in that region. If this is true, I could send someone the map for their region and they could publish it. Not sure if it works this way... anyways, help!
To me, this with an AOE buff would be better than how it is currently either way but I would definitely prefer it with added harder mechanics as well.
And I find it funny how everyone is basically just saying that it would ruin AOE and splits when it's obvious that you would make a proportional AOE buff
On July 03 2012 19:25 yeint wrote: No thank you, this removes anti-AoE micro like splits and magic boxing mutas.
Also, being in a "ball" is important for a lot of army compositions. Marines vs lings, marines need to be able to clump quickly.
But that's the thing. It's to your benefit to have your army together(not necessarily balled up) since you want your whole army to attack at the same time to get more dps. But clumping sucks vs AoE so you gotta split your army in those cases.
So yeah, you can pre-split your army, but then when you engage you won't be getting too much dps. When you get your army together, you get more dps, but you gotta watch out for AoE. So I think that takes care of itself.
Obviously AoE radius might have to be increased but the idea that pre-splitting would kill micro or that you'd ball up at all times anyways just don't work together. Eventually a pre-split army will attack as a single unit, and when they do they're not split anymore. This modification doesn't make it any easier to go from a ball formation to a split formation. All it does is not force your army into a ball formation when moving.
But i guess we just need to see some replays of good players to see what will really happen. I'll try and upload a video of a match if I end up getting any replays.
I think the idea is good. If the community really would like a change in that regard you should do a poll first and if the feedback is good we need something like a petition, done professionally that goes to Blizzard. But only after testing how it works out on custom maps which should be done by pros too. I personally would like it and it should be worth the effort but it takes work nonetheless.
On July 03 2012 19:26 Darneck wrote: To me, this with an AOE buff would be better than how it is currently either way but I would definitely prefer it with added harder mechanics as well.
And I find it funny how everyone is basically just saying that it would ruin AOE and splits when it's obvious that you would make a proportional AOE buff
yes i think so too buff the aoe spells and implement this but i doubt blizz will implement it so its up to modders maybe there will be mods like sc2bw or starbow using it
On July 03 2012 19:26 Darneck wrote: To me, this with an AOE buff would be better than how it is currently either way but I would definitely prefer it with added harder mechanics as well.
And I find it funny how everyone is basically just saying that it would ruin AOE and splits when it's obvious that you would make a proportional AOE buff
yes i think so too buff the aoe spells and implement this but i doubt blizz will implement it so its up to modders maybe there will be mods like sc2bw or starbow using it
If blizzard doesn't implement it..then what's the point :p
I uploaded a map on EU called "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" for anyone whos interested. Didn't see this thread before I did it, maybe I'll upload it another time soon so the names are the same.
On July 03 2012 19:55 Bommes wrote: I uploaded a map on EU called "Daybreak Dynamic Movement" for anyone whos interested. Didn't see this thread before I did it, maybe I'll upload it another time soon so the names are the same.
Sweet thanks again Bommes. By the way I changed the mixed value to 50, i really don't know if there's any ideal value. I just put that number in and went with that.
On July 03 2012 19:25 yeint wrote: No thank you, this removes anti-AoE micro like splits and magic boxing mutas.
Also, being in a "ball" is important for a lot of army compositions. Marines vs lings, marines need to be able to clump quickly.
But that's the thing. It's to your benefit to have your army together(not necessarily balled up) since you want your whole army to attack at the same time to get more dps. But clumping sucks vs AoE so you gotta split your army in those cases.
So yeah, you can pre-split your army, but then when you engage you won't be getting too much dps. When you get your army together, you get more dps, but you gotta watch out for AoE. So I think that takes care of itself.
Obviously AoE radius might have to be increased but the idea that pre-splitting would kill micro or that you'd ball up at all times anyways just don't work together. Eventually a pre-split army will attack as a single unit, and when they do they're not split anymore. This modification doesn't make it any easier to go from a ball formation to a split formation. All it does is not force your army into a ball formation when moving.
But i guess we just need to see some replays of good players to see what will really happen. I'll try and upload a video of a match if I end up getting any replays.
Most of the time optimal DPS is not from a ball, but a concave. Balls are necessary against units like lings.
My point is that we'd lose more micro skill cap than we'd gain. Plus you can imitate this behavior by doing the commands via minimap, the further away the target, the less convergence there is initially.
On July 03 2012 19:25 yeint wrote: No thank you, this removes anti-AoE micro like splits and magic boxing mutas.
Also, being in a "ball" is important for a lot of army compositions. Marines vs lings, marines need to be able to clump quickly.
But that's the thing. It's to your benefit to have your army together(not necessarily balled up) since you want your whole army to attack at the same time to get more dps. But clumping sucks vs AoE so you gotta split your army in those cases.
So yeah, you can pre-split your army, but then when you engage you won't be getting too much dps. When you get your army together, you get more dps, but you gotta watch out for AoE. So I think that takes care of itself.
Obviously AoE radius might have to be increased but the idea that pre-splitting would kill micro or that you'd ball up at all times anyways just don't work together. Eventually a pre-split army will attack as a single unit, and when they do they're not split anymore. This modification doesn't make it any easier to go from a ball formation to a split formation. All it does is not force your army into a ball formation when moving.
But i guess we just need to see some replays of good players to see what will really happen. I'll try and upload a video of a match if I end up getting any replays.
My point is that we'd lose more micro skill cap than we'd gain. Plus you can imitate this behavior by doing the commands via minimap, the further away the target, the less convergence there is initially.
Yea but that doesn't reliably work with ground units because of pathing. There are almost never situations where you would minimap click ground units.
On July 03 2012 19:25 yeint wrote: No thank you, this removes anti-AoE micro like splits and magic boxing mutas.
Also, being in a "ball" is important for a lot of army compositions. Marines vs lings, marines need to be able to clump quickly.
But that's the thing. It's to your benefit to have your army together(not necessarily balled up) since you want your whole army to attack at the same time to get more dps. But clumping sucks vs AoE so you gotta split your army in those cases.
So yeah, you can pre-split your army, but then when you engage you won't be getting too much dps. When you get your army together, you get more dps, but you gotta watch out for AoE. So I think that takes care of itself.
Obviously AoE radius might have to be increased but the idea that pre-splitting would kill micro or that you'd ball up at all times anyways just don't work together. Eventually a pre-split army will attack as a single unit, and when they do they're not split anymore. This modification doesn't make it any easier to go from a ball formation to a split formation. All it does is not force your army into a ball formation when moving.
But i guess we just need to see some replays of good players to see what will really happen. I'll try and upload a video of a match if I end up getting any replays.
My point is that we'd lose more micro skill cap than we'd gain. Plus you can imitate this behavior by doing the commands via minimap, the further away the target, the less convergence there is initially.
Yea but that doesn't reliably work with ground units because of pathing. There are almost never situations where you would minimap click ground units.
I do it quite often when moving bio cross map. Also when leapfrogging tanks.
On July 03 2012 19:25 yeint wrote: No thank you, this removes anti-AoE micro like splits and magic boxing mutas.
Also, being in a "ball" is important for a lot of army compositions. Marines vs lings, marines need to be able to clump quickly.
But that's the thing. It's to your benefit to have your army together(not necessarily balled up) since you want your whole army to attack at the same time to get more dps. But clumping sucks vs AoE so you gotta split your army in those cases.
So yeah, you can pre-split your army, but then when you engage you won't be getting too much dps. When you get your army together, you get more dps, but you gotta watch out for AoE. So I think that takes care of itself.
Obviously AoE radius might have to be increased but the idea that pre-splitting would kill micro or that you'd ball up at all times anyways just don't work together. Eventually a pre-split army will attack as a single unit, and when they do they're not split anymore. This modification doesn't make it any easier to go from a ball formation to a split formation. All it does is not force your army into a ball formation when moving.
But i guess we just need to see some replays of good players to see what will really happen. I'll try and upload a video of a match if I end up getting any replays.
My point is that we'd lose more micro skill cap than we'd gain. Plus you can imitate this behavior by doing the commands via minimap, the further away the target, the less convergence there is initially.
Yea but that doesn't reliably work with ground units because of pathing. There are almost never situations where you would minimap click ground units.
I do it quite often when moving bio cross map. Also when leapfrogging tanks.
But thats not for the purpose of magic boxing them, like you said earlier.
On July 03 2012 19:06 papaz wrote: 1. I actually like the death ball
2. Like it or not. Changing it will give Blizzard a balance headache of huge proportions. Suddenly the AoE is kinda worthless. MKP doesn't need to even marinesplit vs banelings. His units won't clump up -> problem solved.
This is one of those things that won't change in SC2.
A balance headache? I think the hots headache is far greater for blizzard right now, as they seem to be struggling. My suggestion: increase splash damage by 50%, siege tank and baneling aoe by 100% (area, not radius), and increase ultralisk movement speed by 20% or so. Thor aa remains unchanged.
isnt it possible to magig box in SC2? More than once i moved my bio force with magic boxing it to prevent the baneling issue so i dont know if this topic is even relevant.
Why? B/c improving pathing in this way will allow AOE damage to be increased. And increasing AOE damage is, as far as I can see, the only way to prevent the deathball.
Units which control space have to be implemented in the game in order to get out of the shithole SCII is in now.
The siege tank was nerfed into the ground b/c of the pathing engine. A small change like this will make AOE damage increases more tolerable. If they are more tolerable, then Blizzard might be willing to implement them.
If Blizzard does not make a change like this to the pathing engine, then increasing AOE damage will have much harsher effects.
An extremely high level of maintainence is required to continually de-clump your army, and if high AOE damage units are implemented in the current system to fix the deathball issue, then the de-clump APM sink will be too high for most players.
With the suggested pathing system, there is no reason that one cannot clump their units - simply click into the middle of the ball. But along with this change should also come AOE damage increases, meaning that clumping would be less desirable.
It's much too difficult to continually de-clump your units after every single fucking move command, hence why AOE is nerfed so much. This de-clump requirement actually prevents more movement around the map, as players have less incentive to move (every time you do, you have to spend time fucking de-clumping!). Hence why players move out in one big attack (that and the lack of high AOE, space controlling units).
And we need high damage AOE to bring an end to the deathball issue. Changing the pathing system will make the road less painful in the longhaul.
I find it amusing that people believe this would make AOE useless or difficult to rebalance. AOE has been nerfed to hell, and it's still over powered. Having an entire army fungal growth, stormed, or EMP is not fun to watch. When you make moments like that rare, they become more spetecular when they happen, it benefits the game as an Esport.
Units will still clump up in chockes, around builds etc.
Think about, tanks, colossus, storm, archon toilet, Emp all these things have been nerfed because of the clumping. AOE is awesome, but it's in this game it's a joke.
On July 03 2012 21:18 Qwyn wrote: This de-clump requirement actually prevents more movement around the map, as players have less incentive to move (every time you do, you have to spend time fucking de-clumping!). Hence why players move out in one big attack (that and the lack of high AOE, space controlling units).
And we need high damage AOE to bring an end to the deathball issue. Changing the pathing system will make the road less painful in the longhaul.
I strongly agree with that first statement, knowing this from my own games. You spend time splitting all the units up and then you think to yourself "Great, now he can come." Which he has to because I cant move without losing the edge immediatly. Even with high apm it can only be used as a defensive measure which prevents you from attacking until you have a death ball.
On July 03 2012 21:37 Crypdos wrote: This makes the deathball stronger because your units are already pre-split and take less damage from a fungal/storm.
Whats the purpose of this? ..
This is not a change that would change how strong an army is, but it would soften the effect of having giant unit balls of shit in a single control group running around the map humping each other in a giant ball of clusterfuck. Which looks like shit in my personal opinion and is the whole reason it is called a DeathBALL.
edit: Also they are not presplit, you have to manually split them. They just don't clump up whenever you intend to move.
On July 03 2012 21:37 Crypdos wrote: This makes the deathball stronger because your units are already pre-split and take less damage from a fungal/storm.
Whats the purpose of this? ..
AOE would be buffed, the whole way engagements are fought will be different. You will be able to retreat more easily with parts of your army, you'll be able to micro parts of your army more easily.
On July 03 2012 21:37 Crypdos wrote: This makes the deathball stronger because your units are already pre-split and take less damage from a fungal/storm.
Whats the purpose of this? ..
This is not a change that would change how strong an army is, but it would soften the effect of having giant unit balls of shit in a single control group running around the map humping each other in a giant ball of clusterfuck. Which looks like shit in my personal opinion and is the whole reason it is called a DeathBALL.
edit: Also they are not presplit, you have to manually split them. They just don't clump up whenever you intend to move.
LOL, I wish I could write my descriptions of the issue as eloquently as you.
"...Soften the effect of having giant balls of shit in a single control group running around the map humping each other in a giant ball of clusterfuck."
oh the way those armies moved in the video looked so much better than the deathballs we have now! I wish it could be like this, the spectator side of the game would benefit so much from it.
Finding it hard to believe that people think that declumping units would make the game worse. The fact is, you can still pack them in a clumped ball by clicking in the middle of the army. All this modification does is make you more aware of army formation and gives you more options.
The only reason why I'm against this is because the game is already balanced around the current pathing. -Every- splash effect (even things like Hellion Splash) would need a large buff across the board.
On July 03 2012 21:50 shell wrote: I feel that this will also simplify the game imo
Since the best micro tricks are about splitting units, getting a better comclave etc., if you take that away the game would be easier
You still have to split and if you just increase AOE radius, the same amount of micro would still be required since you'd have to split more
Right, people seem to think that this change somehow splits all your forces for you. It doesn't. That must be done manually.
And "blobbing" of units due to small chokes/corners still occurs, meaning that units need to be spread out again. They just don't clump up after every single fucking click into a tight blob when they converge on on their location. They retain formation while traveling.
I Like this a lot. From an observers perspective it looks great.
One thing you could do if blizzard didn't want to implement this is increase the collision radius of each unit so they at least have some gaps between them. The armies in the game look really ugly all bunched up. It makes the armies look smaller and you cant even see shit half of the time. Protoss with colossus in particular looks horrible.
i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
3:30 in the video makes me sooooo sad that SC2 clumps. It just looks so much better, and tanks don't seem to do that stupid pathing fidgeting thing which makes big ground units lose all sense of weight.
Visually and by feeling it's much much much better. However i'm not sure how would this can balanced, but i would love if it was possible.
Btw, this can already be done if you presplit them, and click far away (on the minimap). They will move on a straight line to that far away point almost with the same space inbetween them. The clumping happens much slower.
On July 03 2012 22:12 Tarot wrote: 3:30 in the video makes me sooooo sad that SC2 clumps. It just looks so much better, and tanks don't seem to do that stupid pathing fidgeting thing which makes big ground units lose all sense of weight.
Yeah. I second this.
Tanks feel like rolling tin cans with a cannon. It would be a way more manly unit if it felt like an actual heavy ass tank.
It just feels stupid when a tank is herp derping around behind a force field because it doesn't have the massive unit qualifier.
It can be done easily I think because somehow the Thor actually feels heavy and clunky as it should be. I mean, try to stutter step micro a thor and you will have a good laugh
To everybody saying "Blizzard will never implement something like this", I would like to remind you that they actually DID a similar change in a previous patch. Remember air stacking? Muta stacking? They made a little change to make them spread less and keep formation a little better. Obviously, if this kind of change will ever happen, it won't be as seen in the video. They won't go all the way to a point where units keep prefectly the formation. What can happen tho, is that they do a minor change to make units keep formation better than they do now. It is an easy change, like the OP metioned, and it has a lot of potential. I don't think it will have huge impact on the game, i actually think that it is going to make it visually better, and also the fights will be a little longer because AoE won't kill AS MANY units as it does now, giving more options for retrear, rearrangement, and other stuff, any making small miscontrol errors less gamechanging. It also is a very low league friendly change, and blizzard loves to help and balance low level players too.
In the end it will be just like moving army with the minmap, but you won't have to actually use the minimap to achieve the same result.
AOE would have to be buffed for sure, but the exact values to prevent impenetrable terran siege lines would be a headache to balance to say the least. Yeah, the value changes seem very interesting, but I think expecting Blizzard to rework all of their balance/game mechanics is a bit farfetched. Maybe in HotS, or even LotV, but 100% certain WoL will stay clumpy. :/
Armies are already being 'split' by pro players to avoid aoe damage; it's called micro. This would not break the game. The noobs like me in lower levels of play are not even using infestors, anyway and does anyone really care if the collusus is 'nerfed' for noobs because units no longer automaticaly clump up in balls. Units like vultures and hydralisks had sick movement in BW. This modified movement is not exatcly goign to restore that siccness but it is an improvement I believe. But, really tho, if blizz could have changed it this easily I think they would have. Who knows what the future will hold.
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
On July 03 2012 22:23 Asolmanx wrote: To everybody saying "Blizzard will never implement something like this", I would like to remind you that they actually DID a similar change in a previous patch. Remember air stacking? Muta stacking? They made a little change to make them spread less and keep formation a little better. Obviously, if this kind of change will ever happen, it won't be as seen in the video. They won't go all the way to a point where units keep prefectly the formation. What can happen tho, is that they do a minor change to make units keep formation better than they do now. It is an easy change, like the OP metioned, and it has a lot of potential. I don't think it will have huge impact on the game, i actually think that it is going to make it visually better, and also the fights will be a little longer because AoE won't kill AS MANY units as it does now, giving more options for retrear, rearrangement, and other stuff, any making small miscontrol errors less gamechanging. It also is a very low league friendly change, and blizzard loves to help and balance low level players too.
In the end it will be just like moving army with the minmap, but you won't have to actually use the minimap to achieve the same result.
They changed that because it didn't work as they wanted it to, i.e. they didn't want to have air stacking, so they removed it. Im pretty sure they want unit clumping though. Who wanted that air change anyway? Just Blizz, not the community.
I'm glad Blizzard is going to ignore this constant crap that won't stop coming up on these forums. So many here are clinging on to what they THINK is the reason brood war was successful... sorry to break it to you guys, but it was successful because it was really the first to have a scene that dug itself in. The idea that SC2 is flawed or unit clumping is a problem is something only low-level players would believe. Sorry but high-level games aren't won by deathballs a-moving into eachother as much as some people here want to repeat it over and over - it simply isn't true. There is a lot of micro involved with setting up the big engagements and we are still seeing pros mess this up game after game.
On July 03 2012 19:06 papaz wrote: 1. I actually like the death ball
2. Like it or not. Changing it will give Blizzard a balance headache of huge proportions. Suddenly the AoE is kinda worthless. MKP doesn't need to even marinesplit vs banelings. His units won't clump up -> problem solved.
This is one of those things that won't change in SC2.
what part about increasing aoe don't you understand?
according to you lurkers, storm, everything aoe in bw was useless?
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
That's not how this works though, its not an option that a player has control over rather it is built into the map similar to movement speed or damage.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
That's not how this works though, its not an option that a player has control over rather it is built into the map similar to movement speed or damage.
you missed my point. ergo the army deals alot less damage over a much longer period of time. people saying this removes skill, i dont know how they think that at all. like this would remove the need for splitting to any degree. people had to split in BW and their armies were a hell of alot more seperated than in this video.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
See, that doesn't really make sense. All this does is allow units to stay in formation without clumping up at their destination into a giant pile of shit. It doesn't make the units move in a congo line unless YOU create the congo line. (Also, what do you mean "activated?" Both players would be using it. If I wanted to make a giant ball then I would click in the center of my unit mass).
Now, you said to explain the reasons why one might want this to be implemented. There are several positonal reasons, and a lot more to do with gameflow, but the MAIN reason why I want this pathing change is so that high damage AOE can be implemented.
High damage AOE would prevent the situation that you described. The player that has his army clumped up in a ball would have his army "absolutely melt, in seconds" to a disproportionately lower amount of the other player's AOE. It would reward better positioning and at the same time make formations and better concaves easier to maintain (no more fucking clump after every move command).
In regards to the AOE I am specifically looking towards HOTS. With the pathing change the lurker could actually be implemented instead of some gay-ass substitute, the tank could be buffed significantly, storm, all sorts of shit (fuck collosi).
This would be a horribe change. It would take a lot less skill from the players in terms of micro. This would only lower the skill cap between the best and the other players.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
See, that doesn't really make sense. All this does is allow units to stay in formation without clumping up at their destination into a giant pile of shit. It doesn't make the units move in a congo line unless YOU create the congo line. (Also, what do you mean "activated?" Both players would be using it. If I wanted to make a giant ball then I would click in the center of my unit mass).
Now, you said to explain the reasons why one might want this to be implemented. There are several positonal reasons, and a lot more to do with gameflow, but the MAIN reason why I want this pathing change is so that high damage AOE can be implemented.
High damage AOE would prevent the situation that you described. The player that has his army clumped up in a ball would have his army "absolutely melt, in seconds" to a disproportionately lower amount of the other player's AOE. It would reward better positioning and at the same time make formations and better concaves easier to maintain (no more fucking clump after every move command).
In regards to the AOE I am specifically looking towards HOTS. With the pathing change the lurker could actually be implemented instead of some gay-ass substitute, the tank could be buffed significantly, storm, all sorts of shit (fuck collosi).
you've also missunderstood me, maybe i worded my post badly, i asked for reasons why they think this removes skill and would be a bad thing. i agree that i want this. the same as you.
example being the guy above me, "this would be horrible, removes skill/micro" end of post. HOW EXACTLY? i'd really like to know because im amazed, absolutely amazed at these posts. again. people still had to split in BW and units were way way way way less clumped.
SC2 units need just a slight increase in collision size to solve a couple of game flaws, i.e readabilty and duration of the fight (which leads to more micro, or at least positioning, anyway).
Unit pathing is working as intended and it is not a problem by any means. I guess that everything that's different from Brood War is automatically bad, am I right?
On July 03 2012 22:49 Big G wrote: SC2 units need just a slight increase in collision size to solve a couple of game flaws, i.e readabilty and duration of the fight (which leads to more micro, or at least positioning, anyway).
Unit pathing is working as intended and it is not a problem by any means. I guess that everything that's different from Brood War is automatically bad, am I right?
The funniest thing is people advocating going back to 16 unit control groups and no MBS. That's just nostalgia-goggles in full effect, right there. I wouldn't mind slightly more space between units in sc2 though, if only to make it slightly more visually appealing.
On July 03 2012 19:05 urashimakt wrote: My immediate thought is that the maintained formation shown in the video would significantly reduced the effectiveness of AoE across the board. It looked like you only needed to spread your army once and as long as you had them all selected and didn't go for Terrain they couldn't fit through, they'd maintain the spread. I feel like that'd alleviate the need for more constant unit micro if you're at a level where that's something you do.
What people aren't understanding is that this would open the door for several other changes that, once added, would drastically improve this game.
1) It would reduce the effectiveness of AoE, meaning that Blizzard can (and should, in this situation) increase AoE radius/power. This, in turn, would mean that defender's advantage would become a lot better; Siege Tanks, Banelings, Fungals, Storms, etc. would all be more powerful and would be more capable of holding chokes or fortified positions, which would make the game far more interesting and allow for more harassment/split armies. This would also mean that AoE would destroy deathballs far more easily than they currently do. This will all discourage deathball play.
2) Along with this, there should be a small "personal box" around units that doesn't let them more or less dry hump each other (like you see in most games; you can only let units get so close). Once both of these happen, ranged unit effectiveness will drop and melee unit effectiveness will increase (less ranged units per area of space, more surface area for melee units to attack). This will make the game far more dynamic and discourage deathball play.
3) Overall, this would exponentially increase potential micro, because deathball play would no longer be the most efficient or best way to play. You would see more harassment, more split armies, more positional micro and flanking, etc. etc. etc.
This change would only make this game better, both from a gameplay and spectator point of view.
Even if you would have this cool thing that keeps your units spread it doesn't matter because the maps are so ******** choky that you will have to clump up your units when you wanna move them somewhere.
Like do you think this could happen on a normal map ?
Of course not because there's 1-2 places on every map where you can have spread like this.
One of the main problems with maps is that there isn't that much space which makes unit clumping, forcefields, emps, storms, fungal, colossi etc stupid. On most maps if you want to attack somewhere you need to box your shit, a-move and cross your fingers that you won't get raped by one of those. Look at BW maps, there's so much more space compared to SC2 maps.
On July 03 2012 22:54 zezamer wrote: Most of SC2 maps are garbage tbh.
Even if you would have this cool thing that keeps your units spread it doesn't matter because the maps are so ******** choky that you will have to clump up your units when you wanna move them somewhere.
Like do you think this could happen on a normal map ?
Of course not because there's 1-2 places on every map where you can have spread like this.
One of the main problems with maps is that there isn't that much space which makes unit clumping, forcefields, emps, storms, fungal, colossi etc stupid. On most maps if you want to attack somewhere you need to box your shit, a-move and cross your fingers that you won't get raped by one of those. Look at BW maps, there's so much more space compared to SC2 maps.
There's plenty of space. The problem isn't lack of space; it's the fact that there is no need (and it is actually a bad idea) to not have a deathball.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
See, that doesn't really make sense. All this does is allow units to stay in formation without clumping up at their destination into a giant pile of shit. It doesn't make the units move in a congo line unless YOU create the congo line. (Also, what do you mean "activated?" Both players would be using it. If I wanted to make a giant ball then I would click in the center of my unit mass).
Now, you said to explain the reasons why one might want this to be implemented. There are several positonal reasons, and a lot more to do with gameflow, but the MAIN reason why I want this pathing change is so that high damage AOE can be implemented.
High damage AOE would prevent the situation that you described. The player that has his army clumped up in a ball would have his army "absolutely melt, in seconds" to a disproportionately lower amount of the other player's AOE. It would reward better positioning and at the same time make formations and better concaves easier to maintain (no more fucking clump after every move command).
In regards to the AOE I am specifically looking towards HOTS. With the pathing change the lurker could actually be implemented instead of some gay-ass substitute, the tank could be buffed significantly, storm, all sorts of shit (fuck collosi).
you've also missunderstood me, maybe i worded my post badly, i asked for reasons why they think this removes skill and would be a bad thing. i agree that i want this. the same as you.
example being the guy above me, "this would be horrible, removes skill/micro" end of post. HOW EXACTLY? i'd really like to know because im amazed, absolutely amazed at these posts. again. people still had to split in BW and units were way way way way less clumped.
Oh lol I'm sorry man. I get it now.
Yeah I feel like out of all the things that people want changed in SCII this is the one that has the greatest chance of actually being implemented (as opposed to the economy thread) and would also make the game 10x more fun to watch, which is why I leapt on the bandwagon, lol.
EDIT: Ok now I really get what you are trying to say. Basically - current system leads to gay 2 second clusterfuck battles between piles of shit. Can't have an on/off option b/c the deathball would rape the split army.
The issue with this fix though is that you can still clump up your army into a deathball if you really want to - but this change would allow high damage AOE to be implemented in HOTS. As it stands with WOL there aren't enough deathball deterrents.
The main thing why I am against Deathballs is because they are the reason why a player can lose an entire game just by not paying attention in the wrong moment (e.g. when he is macroing in his base).
Can't remember the last time my units ran around in a deathball, well except they had to only fight non aoe melee units or where some sort of uncontrolled raiding force. I mean Bronze players can already magic box and move units around, but they have to focus on it fully. Especially if a move would keep the magic box, that would make the game to simple. It is more risky yes, but if you have a good scouting, moving in formation has almost no risk involved, compared to a moving, which gets more risky the better player you face. All the spreading you see still from terrans, thats so horrible. Especially when you see them a move marines over half a screen after spreading them to get in range of a hatch, while infestors are still around but without an backup army. Why not move que hold position. Infestors could only watch instead of fungal the marine blob to death, there wouldn't even be risk involved in fail moving. Well no problem with making it easier on move command, but they should clump on a move on any position. Simple because its the best way to form a ball against melee units and because you don't have to learn an invisible circle where you have to click in order to form a ball.
Will certainly try this later today, really appreciate you providing a map to try this out. I really hope our community can rally behind this idea, because once tournaments start using maps with these settings there is no way for blizzard to not make this happen. We shouldn't even discuss whether or not this would make the game harder or whatever, this would fix one of the main issues bw fans, and especially korean bw fans have with star 2, if we fix that the game actually has a chance in korea.
How about getting rid of infinite multiple selection also? One of the few wow factors in sc2 is unit splitting. I'd like to see more micro in big fights.
On July 03 2012 23:09 billy5000 wrote: How about getting rid of infinite multiple selection also? One of the few wow factors in sc2 is unit splitting. I'd like to see more micro in big fights.
Are people still griping about unit selection in SC2? I thought we're done with that.
We can argue until we are blue in the face (well you can, I'm not because I'm not wasting my time), whether it was a "good" design choice to have units ball-up or not. At the end of the day, that is what Blizzard chose, and all the AoE and most of the unit damage in the game was designed around that mechanic. This is why psi storm is MUCH smaller in SC2 (among other things).
So... yeah. Enjoy it if it "looks better..." to you, but this will never happen, as they would have to change much more than just unit pathing.
I'm only for this if AOE was buffed, especially tanks and storm. I think this would make unit splitting even easier than it already is, split your units once and a-move, suddenly your army is counter proof to certain AOE. It makes certain things easier and other things (like getting a perfect concave) much harder, but still nerfs AOE quite a bit.
I'm really all for this, but you can't just release something like this and not expect other things to change to compensate.
I really don't understand why people are insisting on failing to understand why it is called a "Deathball".
Pros don't call it "Deathball" because when you move your army it clumps up. It's only the starter component.
Pros call it "Deathball" because it's about units. 20 clumped up marines doesn't form a "Deathball".
It's about Colossus, Immortal etc. When you have these kind of units, even without clumping, you will want to get your army to babysit those units. Do you actually think people will just leave colossus with less units or move separately if this gets implemented?
No.
May be a buff on AOE would make people change their mind. But that's also risky, can have other consequences.
EDIT: I am not saying this suggestion is bad, it's better. But people need to see it's not only about army movement but also about units aswell.
The look is amazing. Visually, the scene of the troops walking in a heterogeneous formation makes it look much more realistic. Add more excitement from my point of view.
And I do not understand people who just say "NO, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN EVER, BECAUSE THEN BLIZZARD WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ALL!"
Sometimes it seems like you want it easier for Blizzard instead of improving the game as possible.
At first, after looking at the video, I thought this was a brilliant idea, but after reading the subsequent posts, I must agree that this change would destroy a lot of SC2. Half of the "skill" in SC2 is simply /not/A-moving. You look at a lot of professional games, and you'll see that their engagements (usually) isn't just box-and-go. There's time to position, get a concave, etc etc as mentioned by other people before.
Finding new ways to effectively split up your armies is definitely /the/ thing to do in the future after the metagame is more or less stable. The reason I say this is because there are a lot of "bad" engagements when it comes to using a large air-fleet (a big muta/viking/phoenix ball). One storm or fungal, and that entire air group is almost dead. There definitely will be advancements to prevent that.
I must agree that the battles would look "bigger" with this MM change (I personally would enjoy it), but I would argue that even without this change, in a few years (or so), players will start controlling their armies in that way since more and more AoE stuff are being added into the game via the expansions.
This would certainly add another level of skill to the game, trying to arrange your units while they are moving. Really looks cool. Not sure it would ever be implemented, but still cool.
it's common sense that aoe will have to get increased again if this ever gets implemented. And as people have said you can still clump up your units.
Maps will play a large part in this as well. If a toss decides to enagage the natural of a zerg which has a choke in front of it, he can hold him off with a few fungals since the toss will be clumped up. So this will mean the toss will have to engage multiple fronts to prevent this from happening.
Same argument can be made from either race's side (with templar/siege tanks/...).
And if toss still insists on keeping his entire army in a ball in open battles, aoe will rape their armies. So they will have to split up, attack multiple fronts even with collussi/immortals. Imagine a group of 8 stalkers, a sentry or two, a collussi and an immortal attacking one side of the map. While on the other side of the map you have some phoenix harrassment going on. While in the meantime you've got an attack going on a the protoss natural. Sounds so much cooler than: 'oh well here we are, 1 a 200 food stalkers/collussi/sentry'. 5 seconds later: 'Oh look I won, how nice.'
TLDR: improving aoe's DPS/range/size/damage/... will be of vital importance paired with the change of unit movement. One can not be without the other.
On July 03 2012 23:34 uikos wrote: At first, after looking at the video, I thought this was a brilliant idea, but after reading the subsequent posts, I must agree that this change would destroy a lot of SC2. Half of the "skill" in SC2 is simply /not/A-moving. You look at a lot of professional games, and you'll see that their engagements (usually) isn't just box-and-go. There's time to position, get a concave, etc etc as mentioned by other people before.
Finding new ways to effectively split up your armies is definitely /the/ thing to do in the future after the metagame is more or less stable. The reason I say this is because there are a lot of "bad" engagements when it comes to using a large air-fleet (a big muta/viking/phoenix ball). One storm or fungal, and that entire air group is almost dead. There definitely will be advancements to prevent that.
I must agree that the battles would look "bigger" with this MM change (I personally would enjoy it), but I would argue that even without this change, in a few years (or so), players will start controlling their armies in that way since more and more AoE stuff are being added into the game via the expansions.
Well, you can do all that unit maneuvering and positioning by yourself. Often it is very much so favourable to get a clump of units (for example marines against zerglings). But if you want to slowly push and fear splash damage (for example in TvZ Fungal or in TvT tanks against marines) you don't have to constantly fight against your units hugging each other, so a positive assumption that you could make is that you actually get more control over your units and don't have to artificially fight your units clumping, which is just silly and unnatural.
I have no idea if it provides better games or a better gameplay experience. Thats why it should be tested and used in some actual games with good players who are willing to try it
Besides that I mainly agree that the main advantage of formation movement is that it would open the door to make AE much stronger, because people who are unable to constantly anti-clump their units (so low level players) don't get immediately obliterated from 2-3 tanks like they used to before tanks were weakened. Same thing for storm, banelings, etc.. And with stronger AE we will get much better dynamics in holding chokes or ramps with few AE units like templars, tanks etc.. And thats the kind of stuff that makes SC2 interesting.
On July 03 2012 22:54 zezamer wrote: Most of SC2 maps are garbage tbh.
Even if you would have this cool thing that keeps your units spread it doesn't matter because the maps are so ******** choky that you will have to clump up your units when you wanna move them somewhere.
Like do you think this could happen on a normal map ?
Of course not because there's 1-2 places on every map where you can have spread like this.
One of the main problems with maps is that there isn't that much space which makes unit clumping, forcefields, emps, storms, fungal, colossi etc stupid. On most maps if you want to attack somewhere you need to box your shit, a-move and cross your fingers that you won't get raped by one of those. Look at BW maps, there's so much more space compared to SC2 maps.
the size of areas in sc2 maps are adapted to the size of the balls, if blizz decides to implant this change, i will be very glad to make wider areas
I get so freaking frustrated of every second post mentioning/whining about how it would make AOE useless and take away all skill because no splitting would be required.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE
The AOE would of course have to be buffed in radius and even damage since there would be a possibility for it with this. Which in turn would lead to the same amount of splitting being required as you'd have to split away from a larger radius. Players would have to really focus on keeping their units split and not letting them clump up at all since with new and improved AOE like it should be, a clumped up deathball would melt in seconds like marines in storm.
On July 03 2012 22:54 zezamer wrote: Most of SC2 maps are garbage tbh.
Even if you would have this cool thing that keeps your units spread it doesn't matter because the maps are so ******** choky that you will have to clump up your units when you wanna move them somewhere.
Like do you think this could happen on a normal map ?
Of course not because there's 1-2 places on every map where you can have spread like this.
One of the main problems with maps is that there isn't that much space which makes unit clumping, forcefields, emps, storms, fungal, colossi etc stupid. On most maps if you want to attack somewhere you need to box your shit, a-move and cross your fingers that you won't get raped by one of those. Look at BW maps, there's so much more space compared to SC2 maps.
the size of areas in sc2 maps are adapted to the size of the balls, if blizz decides to implant this change, i will be very glad to make wider areas
<3. Mapmakers = heroes.
Now if only...if only...
I forsee a lot of possibilities opened up for mapmaking if this change is made, in regards to engagement areas/platforms.
this is really cool and something that should be explored. Nothing pisses me off more in this game right now than hearing commentators cream their pants repeatedly over BEAUTIFUL FUNGALS! OMG AMAZING STORMS!!! THAT EMP WAS HUGGEEEE! - seriously? its not hard to aoe stuff and how can hitting a bunch of units not be a good move? I understand they are trying to hype up battles but I just cannot stand that at all.
I am honestly shocked by most of the comments in the thread defending the unit clumping in Sc2.. Giant 1A Deathballs or entire games being based around 3-4 abilities in the whole damn game is just dull. there is so much potential in starcraft and especially with a lot of the new stuff coming out, yet so much creativity and interesting battles end in some giant aoe hitting an army and 3 seconds later battle and game is over. I am pretty sure Nada has commented before on how severe the game is and he struggled with it. That is actually the aspect that worries me most for the Bw geniuses coming in and having issue dominating. If the BW pros fail to create the same magic and genius they did in sc1, i think this is a major reason why... When mechanics are easy and automated, and strategy becomes all completely based around a giant clumped army..how much finesse and innovation can you possibly have? I hate to bring him up bc im a fanboy, but MKP is really one of the only people that have shown shocking and potentially revolutionary ways to control units and sc2 has been out for 2 years now...why wouldnt we want to explore other means to control armies?? See past your desire to watch laser shows and anti micro abilities and think at the bigger picture and future possibilities that changes like this would bring to the game and to the scene.
This would cut down on unit splitting micro, but would make the game a lot more strategic. You get the ideal arc and you can hold a position on the map without having to resort to the HOLD command and nullifying melee units, etc.
It would weaken AOE, but AOE's already too silly in my opinion. When your opponent gets a lot of AOE it can pretty much render half of your available units worthless, limiting the game to an unnecessary degree, IMO.
Aesthetically this definitely looks better. However, like many others, I question the balance implications. AOE would need significant changes, and I am curious as to how it would work with chokes and such. The bigger factor, and I hear this a lot from BW players, is that they hate all the changes in SC2 that decrease the reliance on good micro. When things are automated it just makes the player skill that much harder to discern. However, I find that something like this actually does decrease the required micro. Pre splitting an army before an engagement means you can just a-move in to it. Marine splitting from banes or storms is pretty intense, and same goes for splitting before emp for toss
On July 04 2012 00:20 ThirdDegree wrote: Aesthetically this definitely looks better. However, like many others, I question the balance implications. AOE would need significant changes, and I am curious as to how it would work with chokes and such. The bigger factor, and I hear this a lot from BW players, is that they hate all the changes in SC2 that decrease the reliance on good micro. When things are automated it just makes the player skill that much harder to discern. However, I find that something like this actually does decrease the required micro. Pre splitting an army before an engagement means you can just a-move in to it. Marine splitting from banes or storms is pretty intense, and same goes for splitting before emp for toss
Of course there will be balance implications -- the game is balanced around giant clumps of units/death balls. Players are also pre-splitting before engagements regardless when they anticipate an engagement. I also hear a lot from SC2 players that they'd rather fight their opponent and not the UI.
It seems like marine split is the only way to micro your units in SC2 and everybody fear that if units will not auto-clump there will be no micro. Actually in BW there is a lot of micro including marine split. With units no clumping together there will be MORE micro, not less. And also you always CAN clump your units if you want.
So much theorycrafting and whining in this thread instead of decent players' replays. OP did it exactly right. No bs hypothesising, simply "let's see how this works out". I really don't get why people complain about this idea before it's even tested.
I don't mind it as much but more specifically to counter your arguement of being BW like. Units did clump up and not only that the reason why it does not appear to be is because the units are in like 4 different control groups unlike the units in your video nice mechanics thought.
I don't think they will change it but epic nonetheless.
I would be very much in favor of this change (or some form of it). Maybe the movement can gain some momentum with tournies/showmatches. It seems like if this idea caught on, Blizzard really couldn't stop it because tournaments could just use custom maps.
On July 04 2012 00:34 AsymptoticClimax wrote: This is a pretty huge change so big infact that I think It's too late to implement because the cost and change on balance is too large.
Imagine how infective storm and fungal would become?
a perfect time to introduce it in HotS before the beta is released. Something should be changed, and I think a combination of the new HotS units, a Movement modification and less resources per base would make the game really interesting. We are all going to have to relearn a lot of match ups in HotS, so why not new mechanics to? level the playing field and for SC2 to be a better game, this HAS to happen.
This looks amazing, but I'd be extremely sad if this is what SC2 movement was. You could set your army once, and just keep it's formation and move forward over and over, that's wayyyy too easy.
There are tricks with the SC2 unit system. Click far away with units in formation and they will keep their spread better. The death ball is a symptom of people not controlling their units better. People always complain SC2 is too easy compared to BW, yet they can't even keep their army split up. I'd much rather have an incentive to split than be forced to, more skill requirements for better players.
Plus, have you even seen what you can do with shift-micro? You can shift-micro Marines to stutter step with move-hold-move-hold. Idk, with SC2's features it heavily makes up for the "deathball", and only makes it easier for you to smash people who DO ball up their army.
On July 04 2012 00:37 BeholdOblivion wrote: I would be very much in favor of this change (or some form of it). Maybe the movement can gain some momentum with tournies/showmatches. It seems like if this idea caught on, Blizzard really couldn't stop it because tournaments could just use custom maps.
I wish, but pros practice on ladder which means they'd have to practice two different versions of SC2, not viable sorry to say. If this is going to happen, it has to be done by blizzard. Thing is, we need to show proof and testing the map and showing evidence is the best way to prove it's worth looking into.
Once again a lot of people just posting the same things over and over without reading the things that's already been mentioned in the thread and should probably be added to the OP.
On July 04 2012 00:13 jdsowa wrote: This would cut down on unit splitting micro, but would make the game a lot more strategic. You get the ideal arc and you can hold a position on the map without having to resort to the HOLD command and nullifying melee units, etc.
It would weaken AOE, but AOE's already too silly in my opinion. When your opponent gets a lot of AOE it can pretty much render half of your available units worthless, limiting the game to an unnecessary degree, IMO.
This will not cut down on splitting micro as an AOE buff would be needed with this change and it's purpose is also not to weaken AOE but give it the possibility to be even stronger like it should be.
If you focus on splitting your units and staying split a fight vs AOE should have around the same effect as it does currently except for the fight being fought out a lot better as the army would be more spread which would allow and encourage more micro in seperate parts of it as it would be a longer fight that's not over in a second.
If you do not focus on splitting your units, they will and should be melted by AOE.
On July 04 2012 00:20 ThirdDegree wrote: Aesthetically this definitely looks better. However, like many others, I question the balance implications. AOE would need significant changes, and I am curious as to how it would work with chokes and such. The bigger factor, and I hear this a lot from BW players, is that they hate all the changes in SC2 that decrease the reliance on good micro. When things are automated it just makes the player skill that much harder to discern. However, I find that something like this actually does decrease the required micro. Pre splitting an army before an engagement means you can just a-move in to it. Marine splitting from banes or storms is pretty intense, and same goes for splitting before emp for toss
Since the radius/damage of AOE would be increased together with this it wouldn't change the micro required as a larger area would mean that you would have to split further to avoid it.
I'd be interested to see this MM change in conjunction with the 5 mineral patches per base map to see whether they compliment each other and if indeed it does make for better games
Honestly i don't care about balance. HOTS is coming, the balance will be f****d up, the beta and the patch will come to fix that.
Now what i do care is the look ( as a spectator ) and the feeling of the game i play. And i have to say both are great with that change. It's crazy how army look even bigger and badass. There's so much to do in that direction. I love it !
Now what's make me a sad panda is that i'm not sure if blizzard is capable of changing such core mechanics in his game. They kind of did for War 3 with the expansion ( The game was so boring before ), not to sure if this is the same now...Hope i'm wrong cause it's that kind of change i'm looking for HOTS.
here are a few ideas I have to go alongside this mod
buff emp radius buff overall tank damage. Now that smaller units won't clump as easily, there is really no real reason to have a 35(+15 light) tag anymore, so make it just base 50 damage or maybe higher. buff HSM radius
buff storm radius, the damage output is fine as is I want to say buff colossi splash, but since it's a linear splash it might just need a bit more base line damage either buff archons base damage or buff it's AOE radius
buff fungal growth dps. I don't think we need fungal to have a bigger radius like storm as it's an ability that locks down and prevents micro, I think a DPS buff to compensate for hitting less targets could be an answer. Ultralisk might need tweaking as well, it's already pathetic in WoL, it might not need any changes with HotS however. Banelings will need a radius buff as well but it shouldn't have a bigger radius on impacting buildings, to prevent 5 banelings from destroying 10 supply depots.
On July 04 2012 00:54 Super_bricklayer wrote: Honestly i don't care about balance. HOTS is coming, the balance will be f****d up, the beta and the patch will come to fix that.
Now what i do care is the look ( as a spectator ) and the feeling of the game i play. And i have to say both are great with that change. It's crazy how army look even bigger and badass. There's so much to do in that direction. I love it !
Now what's make me a sad panda is that i'm not sure if blizzard is capable of changing such core mechanics in his game. They kind of did for War 3 with the expansion ( The game was so boring before ), not to sure if this is the same now...Hope i'm wrong cause it's that kind of change i'm looking for HOTS.
This is what makes me have just a slight bit of hope for it acually happening. I'm just wondering how to get it to them, show it and how to open their eyes about it.
And the only real problem I see with completely balancing this by buffing aoe damage and radius is what to do with it vs workers since that could be problematic.
If you think about it, everything is gonna need to be rebalanced anyway once HOTS is released, so that would be the perfect time to introduce a fundamental change like this.
It looks good in principle, and it's clearly a change in the right direction, but it would need a lot of testing by pros on community maps first (kind of like the reducing mineral patches movement...whatever happened to that?)
wow. i know modifying movement makes sense for gameplay but seeing it in sc2 is awesome. really makes the graphics shine - everything seems on a larger scale and clarity is massively improved. good work, proud to bump this =)
On July 04 2012 00:59 emc wrote: here are a few ideas I have to go alongside this mod
buff emp radius buff overall tank damage. Now that smaller units won't clump as easily, there is really no real reason to have a 35(+15 light) tag anymore, so make it just base 50 damage or maybe higher. buff HSM radius
buff storm radius, the damage output is fine as is I want to say buff colossi splash, but since it's a linear splash it might just need a bit more base line damage either buff archons base damage or buff it's AOE radius
buff fungal growth dps. I don't think we need fungal to have a bigger radius like storm as it's an ability that locks down and prevents micro, I think a DPS buff to compensate for hitting less targets could be an answer. Ultralisk might need tweaking as well, it's already pathetic in WoL, it might not need any changes with HotS however. Banelings will need a radius buff as well but it shouldn't have a bigger radius on impacting buildings, to prevent 5 banelings from destroying 10 supply depots.
none of this is really needed
units naturally clump during an engagement, because multiple units have a tendency to all shoot at the same thing whether or not you tell them to. directing AOE at the sweet spots of the opponent army requires you quickly and accurately evaluate the engagement whereas the textbook baneling vs marine split, as cool as it is, is pretty repetitive in how it plays out
this definitely needs to be looked at for hots - see, the reason BW pathing is better is because this is more or less the behavior of the units. units within a certain size formation will preserve that formation roughly unless you select a really large formation of units (this is all the overlord+muta trick really does) or click toward the center of the formation. BW pathing is also bad because there's a limited number of directions that units can move, whereas SC2 units can move in 360 degrees, on top of some strange animation bugs. i don't see why we can't have the best of both worlds.
Too much theory crafting in this thread. People need to start posting replays of match up's showing their points.
The commonly debated points:
-AoE becomes useless. -Splitting is the only interesting micro in SC2; pre-splitting will ruin it. -Balancing headaches.
These are all personal views on the outcome without testing. Who knows, maybe it breaks the game completely, maybe it creates a lot more strategic decisions that currently aren't being thought of due to current movement restraints, maybe this will spread out battles creating more fronts to fight at. Maybe unit comp and unit formation will become an interesting part of micro as you can now somewhat keep units in formation.
As said at the start of all those sentences; "Maybe". I'm really interested to see how some games play out, and definitely willing to play with some fellow TLers for fun to see what changes.
Edit: OP can I request what you have changed so those of us with some editor experience can fiddle around with it as well / create more maps with the change?
Lets use a common acronym to throw in front of map names to help keep things standardized. This appears to be MM for Modified Movement.
On July 04 2012 01:30 Razith wrote: Too much theory crafting in this thread. People need to start posting replays of match up's showing their points.
The commonly debated points:
-AoE becomes useless. -Splitting is the only interesting micro in SC2; pre-splitting will ruin it. -Balancing headaches.
These are all personal views on the outcome without testing. Who knows, maybe it breaks the game completely, maybe it creates a lot more strategic decisions that currently aren't being thought of due to current movement restraints, maybe this will spread out battles creating more fronts to fight at. Maybe unit comp and unit formation will become an interesting part of micro as you can now somewhat keep units in formation.
As said at the start of all those sentences; "Maybe". I'm really interested to see how some games play out, and definitely willing to play with some fellow TLers for fun to see what changes.
Edit: OP can I request what you have changed so those of us with some editor experience can fiddle around with it as well / create more maps with the change?
Lets use a common acronym to throw in front of map names to help keep things standardized. This appears to be MM for Modified Movement.
It's tough to get anything other than personal views though when it's still not possible to test the actual things you think would need changing. At the moment you can only really get a feel of the actual movement and perhaps what the current balance with it would be like but not with AOE changed etc. I'm just hoping people doesn't just dismiss it after trying it because they think it's imbalanced without all the obvious suggested changes that should be made alongside it.
On July 04 2012 01:40 GamanNo wrote: Well as long as this doesn't make sc2 easier I am all for it. The clumping up kind of irritates me.
In theory it shouldn't make it easier, only more difficult as staying split would mean that it's kind of the way it is now in terms of balance/dodging AOE but if you don't stay split and clump up you should be destroyed with improved AOE.
I don't think it'll ruin the need to marine split. If you pre-split and move your marines all spread out -- *theorycraft moment* -- zerg could just send slings which are much better against split up units because of the larger surface area. So you'll still see a lot of moving around in a clump, it's just that this clump will be intentional rather than nearly unavoidable. Then when the normal time arises in which you want them spread out, you still split normally.
This is all just BS conjecture of course, so i'd like to actually play a game or two!
While I agree it is pretty cool, you can't argue that it doesn't bring the skill cap of the game down. A player who spreads and splits better than his opponent will gain an advantage in an even engagement.
You can't expect to change a fundamental part of the game and expect balance to stay exactly how it is. You change one fundamental thing, suddenly several other fundamental things are broken. I don't need to explain what becomes useless and what becomes easier, because many people have stated it already. It's a nice mod but not realistic.
On July 04 2012 01:44 TechNoTrance wrote: While I agree it is pretty cool, you can't argue that it doesn't bring the skill cap of the game down. A player who spreads and splits better than his opponent will gain an advantage in an even engagement.
You can't expect to change a fundamental part of the game and expect balance to stay exactly how it is. You change one fundamental thing, suddenly several other fundamental things are broken. I don't need to explain what becomes useless and what becomes easier, because many people have stated it already. It's a nice mod but not realistic.
I think you overestimate the effects of this. It mainly changes how the player has to control the stuff to make it work. The core gameplay data/mechanics and thus the balance is not affected by this at all. Also, no one expects it to be used in WoL without balance changes. See it as an idea that no one has tested yet and that could be nice to introduce for HotS, where balance is something that is has to be reestablished anyway.
This would kind of encourage players to put everything in one control group.
I have messed with this a lot and it doesn't really work out very well.
With this change clumped units are still just as ugly, and it just makes it really easy to put your units in these formations instead of requiring skill to keep your units spread out. I think instead it would be better to increase unit sizes (by like %10 radius size) so clumped units don't look as ugly, and only increase the magic box size to scale. Also reducing moving turnrates (more like BW, btw) will help units not clump up as quickly.
If this was actually a thing it would remove any micro from a terran standpoint because they wouldnt need to split the marines against banelings for instance and that literally removes that part of the game.
I wonder how it would looks when the army goes into fighting range. There they should naturally clump up again because every unit tries to get in shooting range.
Love how it looks. And there is no better time to press something like this than with a new expansion.
For some reason I can't find the map and I'm on US server... I tried "mmdaybreak" then put in caps though I don't think it's case sensitive, then tried "MM Daybreak" and still nothing.
On July 04 2012 01:44 TechNoTrance wrote: While I agree it is pretty cool, you can't argue that it doesn't bring the skill cap of the game down. A player who spreads and splits better than his opponent will gain an advantage in an even engagement.
You can't expect to change a fundamental part of the game and expect balance to stay exactly how it is. You change one fundamental thing, suddenly several other fundamental things are broken. I don't need to explain what becomes useless and what becomes easier, because many people have stated it already. It's a nice mod but not realistic.
How does it bring down the skill cap when the AOE radius of all spells would be increased so that you'd have to split more, this makes it so that you get destroyed even worse if you don't split and stay spread, making it even more important
On July 04 2012 01:50 FlukyS wrote: If this was actually a thing it would remove any micro from a terran standpoint because they wouldnt need to split the marines against banelings for instance and that literally removes that part of the game.
AOE would be buffed together with it so that you have to split even further so no it wouldn't remove that part of the game, it would just make you get even more destroyed by not splitting.
I tried the mod and there is an issue when selected units are very far apart on the map, they still keep their formation even if they are 50 squares away.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
I think too many people have skipped over MavercK's points. For those unaware he is the one leading the SC2:BW mod and definitely has some experience in how movement changes affect gameplay. Quoted for exposure.
On July 04 2012 01:57 Superouman wrote: I tried the mod and there is an issue when selected units are very far apart on the map, they still keep their formation even if they are 50 squares away.
The problem is that if you reduce the maximum distance, then if any unit outside, like 50 squares away, is also selected, all units will clump up again. Like I said, it doesn't work out very well.
I think the system would only work with a limited unit selection.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
On July 03 2012 22:35 MavercK wrote: one more thing i have to say.
consider this
two players vs'ing each other one has this activated, the other does not.
the guys army thats all split up will melt, absolutely melt, in seconds, to the other players standard death ball. it would be the most one sided battle in history.
people really seem missguided and aren't explaining their reasons at all.
I think too many people have skipped over MavercK's points. For those unaware he is the one leading the SC2:BW mod and definitely has some experience in how movement changes affect gameplay. Quoted for exposure.
But I think with this change it's still pretty easy to clump your units if you want to, isn't it? So players just always will, unless they need to avoid some AoE or something, in which case they can easily avoid it by spreading ahead of time and leaving them spread.
But I think with this change it's still pretty easy to clump your units if you want to, isn't it? So players just always will, unless they need to avoid some AoE or something, in which case they can easily avoid it by spreading ahead of time and leaving them spread.
It is indeed still pretty easy to clump up your units but the question is, will anyone want to with increased aoe radius and damage? Being spread out ahead of time and leaving them spread would make it so that a fight VS aoe is basically like it currently is but if you are clumped up, it will be 10x worse to be clumped up and I'm not sure if someone would even risk that
i dont get it. whats the sense of this? how would this improve the game for the palyers or the audience.
i am sorry. but i dont see any real positive effect besides a lower dps (regardless of aoe) if u force units to only move like this, and remove the clumping at all. but this would change asthetics of the game for the viewer, and the controlling for the players in realy huge way. so in my opinion this cant be a solution (in case the dps is a real problem).
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
Moreover, units like zergling would be effective again vs marines or roach who are way stronger when packed.
Why? B/c improving pathing in this way will allow AOE damage to be increased. And increasing AOE damage is, as far as I can see, the only way to prevent the deathball.
Units which control space have to be implemented in the game in order to get out of the shithole SCII is in now.
The siege tank was nerfed into the ground b/c of the pathing engine. A small change like this will make AOE damage increases more tolerable. If they are more tolerable, then Blizzard might be willing to implement them.
If Blizzard does not make a change like this to the pathing engine, then increasing AOE damage will have much harsher effects.
An extremely high level of maintainence is required to continually de-clump your army, and if high AOE damage units are implemented in the current system to fix the deathball issue, then the de-clump APM sink will be too high for most players.
With the suggested pathing system, there is no reason that one cannot clump their units - simply click into the middle of the ball. But along with this change should also come AOE damage increases, meaning that clumping would be less desirable.
It's much too difficult to continually de-clump your units after every single fucking move command, hence why AOE is nerfed so much. This de-clump requirement actually prevents more movement around the map, as players have less incentive to move (every time you do, you have to spend time fucking de-clumping!). Hence why players move out in one big attack (that and the lack of high AOE, space controlling units).
And we need high damage AOE to bring an end to the deathball issue. Changing the pathing system will make the road less painful in the longhaul.
Yeah....I just learned to constantly declump versus infestors/templar (as terran). It's annoying, but I get a lot of practice with it at least.
On July 04 2012 02:08 cHL_at wrote: i dont get it. whats the sense of this? how would this improve the game for the palyers or the audience.
i am sorry. but i dont see any real positive effect besides a lower dps (regardless of aoe) if u force units to only move like this, and remove the clumping at all. but this would change asthetics of the game for the viewer, and the controlling for the players in realy huge way. so in my opinion this cant be a solution (in case the dps is a real problem).
It looks better to the audience without everything being a whole mess.
Fights would go on for longer and be more spread out hopefully which in turn would grant more options and control to the players in the actual fighting, giving them a larger part of deciding the outcome of the fight rather than a simple A-move to see the outcome 1 second later.
You also wouldn't be completely dead if you do a bad engagement because the whole army doesn't necessarily have to be in the fight so it would be easier to retreat. You could also snipe parts of other armies with smaller groups of units and the AOE buff would make it easier to hold certain locations etc.
Does the map really not show up? I just checked and found it right away. Just went on Multiplayer, Create game, typed in mmdaybreak, pressed enter, and it just shows. Please let me know if you still cant find it.
As to what I changed so others can do it to. Click the Data button in the editor. Then go on the Gameplay Data tab. Click on Default SC2 Gameplay Settings. Once clicked, on the right you will see some settings you can change. One of them is Formation Diameter(Mixed). Simply change this value to 50 to achieve what I've done. That's it
While this change is a step in the right direction I still think its not enough by itself.
Thing Id like to add is increased hitboxes of all units and make move commanded units not push other units that are standing still when passing by them. Like when a unit is rallied on terrain where there are lots of other units, and then it just goes through them like butter. The unit should reach the rally point, but IMO not nearly as fast as it does now. It should be a bit clunkier.
Also they should behave like this [ not pushing] when more units are moving together and then one of them hits an obstacle. To go around the obstacle, in current pathing rules, the unit then pushes the unit nearby which then does the same to the next unit and it all feels just too fluid and fast and very unnatural. Obstacles should have at least some impact on unit movement.
On July 04 2012 02:15 Orzabal wrote: The AOE should not be necessary buffed because units like zealots or zerglings would be more effective.
AOE should already be stronger than it already it so it is definitely necessary
If people want AOE to be more powerfull is because "deathball" is too strong and player lack of option to stand vs a larger army. They cant shine with a a good micro who can take down the enemy army.
With a unit movement like in this video you want :
- spread units vs AOE - clumped units vs zerglings, zealots etc.
the dynamics of the micro needed is more interesting from a player or spectator point of view : player have to spread then clumped etc. The other player can flank, embush a part of the army etc.
On July 03 2012 19:08 speknek wrote: Yes current aoe spells would be less effective vs permanently spread out units, thanks detectives. Let's think about less obvious things now.
You shouldn't ignore the showstopping issue just because it's inconvenient.
On July 03 2012 19:10 Adonminus wrote: It looks much nicer visually, however I believe it can make control a bit harder. That's not a bad thing after all, since pro players have the apm to either put the units in a deathball formation or into any other formation quite easily.
Just hope it won't make stalkers and immortals as stupid as dragoons.
The value change doesn't affect movement AI, just the target location for each unit relative to the group command.
On July 04 2012 02:15 Orzabal wrote: The AOE should not be necessary buffed because units like zealots or zerglings would be more effective.
AOE should already be stronger than it already it so it is definitely necessary
If people want AOE to be more powerfull is because "deathball" is too strong and player lack of option to stand vs a larger army. They cant shine with a a good micro who can take down the enemy army.
With a unit movement like in this video you want :
- spread units vs AOE - clumped units vs zerglings, zealots etc.
the dynamics of the micro needed is more interesting from a player or spectator point of view : player have to spread then clumped etc. The other player can flank, embush a part of the army etc.
I want stronger AOE because AOE should be what completely destroys you if you don't avoid it but this change without any change whatsoever to the radius it would be rendered close to useless in most cases. I'm not sure how stronger AOE discourages spread units vs AOE and vs melee you'd just have to be smart
I think this would open a lot of tactical formations like seen in medieval ages, and make it easier for a casual player to execute them. Of course a pro player would still do it better, because they would be much faster making the formations while macroing, so it wouldn't lower the skill cap.
Not sure if there's a post of this in the battle.net forums, but there it would gain more visibility by the developers i suppose.
On July 04 2012 02:30 Apolo wrote: Not sure if there's a post of this in the battle.net forums, but there it would gain more visibility by the developers i suppose.
Yeah, I wanted to make a post, but I thought it might be better to have videos of people playing first for others to see. I hope good players start uploading replays soon...
This could be a tremendous improvement to all aspects of SC2. Thank you so much for showing us this!
If AOE isn't as good in this setup, then players should learn how to use it more effectively. Players with good unit micro have learned how to use their units more effectively, so the same should apply to players who have AOE.
On July 03 2012 19:06 papaz wrote: 1. I actually like the death ball
2. Like it or not. Changing it will give Blizzard a balance headache of huge proportions. Suddenly the AoE is kinda worthless. MKP doesn't need to even marinesplit vs banelings. His units won't clump up -> problem solved.
This is one of those things that won't change in SC2.
what part about increasing aoe don't you understand?
according to you lurkers, storm, everything aoe in bw was useless?
You couldn't have 120 food on one control group either, or move them with one command.
SC2 is SC2. This suggestion is heading into Pro Mod territory.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
it simplifies the game because its easier to clump then to unclump and would remove options out of the game. So if your units are unclumped by standard its way easier to clump them for 100% damage output, something that is not desirable anyway, since you want to get an advantage out of a fight. Oh and talking about the perfect a click concave, the attack of the colossus gets perfect damage from this. So i doubt you want this 100% damage efficients to happen against a colossus. Also it would be needed to change unit stats, ranged units would have to become stronger, melee units weaker, aoes wider.
I mean bw is a good example of unclumped units, when a moving your units formed a line and died one by one. But it is incredible easy in bw to form a front line with your units and attack in a perfect concave. Thats why you don't really have to watch your army fight in bw, they do fine without you and reproducing the rapidly lost forces is way more important.
In sc2 the control overall got easier and you could increase the amount of micro needed. Thats why there are more options in the pathfinding in sc2. The difference between a move and move command is one part of it, allowing you army to either move unclumped or clumped. A move is less risky because your units fire at sight and they optimize their damage, but moving your whole army clumped can be fairly risky against aoe units. Move command allows your army to stay in formation, holding position to attack to prevent stacking will enable your army to survive way longer, the downside is the enemy can get you offguard with his whole army. So making a-move also unclumped, would remove one option from the game, thus simpler.
There is so much stuff in sc2 still that makes the game easier for you, if we make the game easier now and people find out the hidden easy modes, like autofollow and magic box. Then sc2 will truly become to easy. But right now i would say it is a bit to hard to reach the full potential sc2 allows, but i don't have 300 apm to really test out the boundaries. And gamers really like to waste their apm and units in needless actions, because its easier to train the muscles then the brain. So a-move all the way, because its to risky to learn other forms of movement and mess up.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
it simplifies the game because its easier to clump then to unclump and would remove options out of the game. So if your units are unclumped by standard its way easier to clump them for 100% damage output, something that is not desirable anyway, since you want to get an advantage out of a fight. Oh and talking about the perfect a click concave, the attack of the colossus gets perfect damage from this. So i doubt you want this 100% damage efficients to happen against a colossus. Also it would be needed to change unit stats, ranged units would have to become stronger, melee units weaker, aoes wider.
I mean bw is a good example of unclumped units, when a moving your units formed a line and died one by one. But it is incredible easy in bw to form a front line with your units and attack in a perfect concave. Thats why you don't really have to watch your army fight in bw, they do fine without you and reproducing the rapidly lost forces is way more important.
In sc2 the control overall got easier and you could increase the amount of micro needed. Thats why there are more options in the pathfinding in sc2. The difference between a move and move command is one part of it, allowing you army to either move unclumped or clumped. A move is less risky because your units fire at sight and they optimize their damage, but moving your whole army clumped can be fairly risky against aoe units. Move command allows your army to stay in formation, holding position to attack to prevent stacking will enable your army to survive way longer, the downside is the enemy can get you offguard with his whole army. So making a-move also unclumped, would remove one option from the game, thus simpler.
There is so much stuff in sc2 still that makes the game easier for you, if we make the game easier now and people find out the hidden easy modes, like autofollow and magic box. Then sc2 will truly become to easy. But right now i would say it is a bit to hard to reach the full potential sc2 allows, but i don't have 300 apm to really test out the boundaries. And gamers really like to waste their apm and units in needless actions, because its easier to train the muscles then the brain. So a-move all the way, because its to risky to learn other forms of movement and mess up.
Have you ever watched bw games? Pro's put immense micro into their battles lol. The only reason they sometimes don't is because you didn't have multiple building selection so you HAD to go back to your base to click on your barracks etc to make units. If you leave units alone to fight in bw you are doomed!! doomed! I tell you. Have you ever seen marines just going at it versus lurkers? lol. Have you ever seen science vessels just hovering above the army? Have you ever seen scourges controlled by the AI? Have you ever seen dragoons a-moving? Do you know what happens if you let your mutalisks uncontrolled? I actually just played a game where 20 zerglings were about 1-2 inches on my screen away from the fight and they were just sitting there. Bw's army needed immense babysitting. That's why pro's can get so much out of 1 unit while a noob sucks donkey balls with it. If you give me a collusus and you give a pro a collusus the difference is going to be much less than if you give me a reaver and shuttle and bisu a reaver and a shuttle.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
it simplifies the game because its easier to clump then to unclump and would remove options out of the game. So if your units are unclumped by standard its way easier to clump them for 100% damage output, something that is not desirable anyway, since you want to get an advantage out of a fight. Oh and talking about the perfect a click concave, the attack of the colossus gets perfect damage from this. So i doubt you want this 100% damage efficients to happen against a colossus. Also it would be needed to change unit stats, ranged units would have to become stronger, melee units weaker, aoes wider.
I mean bw is a good example of unclumped units, when a moving your units formed a line and died one by one. But it is incredible easy in bw to form a front line with your units and attack in a perfect concave. Thats why you don't really have to watch your army fight in bw, they do fine without you and reproducing the rapidly lost forces is way more important.
In sc2 the control overall got easier and you could increase the amount of micro needed. Thats why there are more options in the pathfinding in sc2. The difference between a move and move command is one part of it, allowing you army to either move unclumped or clumped. A move is less risky because your units fire at sight and they optimize their damage, but moving your whole army clumped can be fairly risky against aoe units. Move command allows your army to stay in formation, holding position to attack to prevent stacking will enable your army to survive way longer, the downside is the enemy can get you offguard with his whole army. So making a-move also unclumped, would remove one option from the game, thus simpler.
There is so much stuff in sc2 still that makes the game easier for you, if we make the game easier now and people find out the hidden easy modes, like autofollow and magic box. Then sc2 will truly become to easy. But right now i would say it is a bit to hard to reach the full potential sc2 allows, but i don't have 300 apm to really test out the boundaries. And gamers really like to waste their apm and units in needless actions, because its easier to train the muscles then the brain. So a-move all the way, because its to risky to learn other forms of movement and mess up.
What the hell...?
Nobody on any high level can ever get away with not watching your army fights.
On July 03 2012 22:08 MavercK wrote: i dont understand people saying this simplifies the game... deathball is an issue because your ball is so tightly clumped that as soon as an engagement happens 100% of your units are shooting and it's instantly perfectly efficient.
where as with inefficient pathing fights become longer because units filter in and you have maybe 50% of your army attacking at any given time in a battle. alot of repositioning goes on. time is given for reinforcements and flanks. etc. the list goes on.
it simplifies the game because its easier to clump then to unclump and would remove options out of the game. So if your units are unclumped by standard its way easier to clump them for 100% damage output, something that is not desirable anyway, since you want to get an advantage out of a fight. Oh and talking about the perfect a click concave, the attack of the colossus gets perfect damage from this. So i doubt you want this 100% damage efficients to happen against a colossus. Also it would be needed to change unit stats, ranged units would have to become stronger, melee units weaker, aoes wider.
I mean bw is a good example of unclumped units, when a moving your units formed a line and died one by one. But it is incredible easy in bw to form a front line with your units and attack in a perfect concave. Thats why you don't really have to watch your army fight in bw, they do fine without you and reproducing the rapidly lost forces is way more important.
In sc2 the control overall got easier and you could increase the amount of micro needed. Thats why there are more options in the pathfinding in sc2. The difference between a move and move command is one part of it, allowing you army to either move unclumped or clumped. A move is less risky because your units fire at sight and they optimize their damage, but moving your whole army clumped can be fairly risky against aoe units. Move command allows your army to stay in formation, holding position to attack to prevent stacking will enable your army to survive way longer, the downside is the enemy can get you offguard with his whole army. So making a-move also unclumped, would remove one option from the game, thus simpler.
There is so much stuff in sc2 still that makes the game easier for you, if we make the game easier now and people find out the hidden easy modes, like autofollow and magic box. Then sc2 will truly become to easy. But right now i would say it is a bit to hard to reach the full potential sc2 allows, but i don't have 300 apm to really test out the boundaries. And gamers really like to waste their apm and units in needless actions, because its easier to train the muscles then the brain. So a-move all the way, because its to risky to learn other forms of movement and mess up.
Making AOE radius and damage higher would make it stronger and more risky to move over the map, clumped or not. Moving unclumped and being able to stay that way would spread out fights, giving you more possibilites for control and micro in a fight, you'd also have the option to retreat with parts of your army.
It doesn't make it more simple, it doesn't remove anything that is already in the game except for slight spreading right before an engagement but that would still be done and it adds so much more.
And moving in a line isn't always necessarily the superior. If you get flanked you're 100x worse off than if you were in a huge ball.
On July 04 2012 02:59 iPAndi wrote: Still cant find the map.. so sad
I'm a noob! lol
I just looked in the editor trying to find what I must have done wrong. It says private release..... I'm gonna change that right now, i apologize, new to this.
I gotta say, I LOVE the look of the movement unclumped. Regardless of any "balance issues" this would create, I'd love to see it get heavily tested and considered for the full game. If it proves to be a better way for units to be controlled, the game could be rebalanced for it. Besides, HoTS will throw balance out the window anyway until they've taken a year or two to balance it again. And as far as simplifying the game goes, this opens up a lot of APM utilizing tactics that would help raise the skill ceiling.
What bothers me most about any RTS game is when I feel like there's a fairly simple order I'd like to give my army but I don't have the ability to do that. Something like "everyone walk east" (which is what this unclumped movement essentially is) seems like something any army would know how to do, not just "everyone walk to this specific point" (which is a separate command that accomplishes different things).
On July 04 2012 03:06 Dahlian wrote: Can you integrate a note to the DM Unit Tester in the OP aswell? So that everyone gets more opportunities to test stuff.
On July 04 2012 03:06 Dahlian wrote: Can you integrate a note to the DM Unit Tester in the OP aswell? So that everyone gets more opportunities to test stuff.
Done
You should change "Uploaded by redice" to "Uploaded by SeiGG". That's the account I uploaded it on. :x
it simplifies the game because its easier to clump then to unclump and would remove options out of the game. So if your units are unclumped by standard its way easier to clump them for 100% damage output, something that is not desirable anyway, since you want to get an advantage out of a fight. Oh and talking about the perfect a click concave, the attack of the colossus gets perfect damage from this. So i doubt you want this 100% damage efficients to happen against a colossus.
What if don't want to have to
fight against the interface
becauase ordering your units to separate only to have them clump together with your next order is
unintuitive
In all seriousness, like others, I can't seem to find MMDaybreak. And can I say that Custom Maps on Battlenet 0.2 is one the WORST ways of implementing it? Bah, it doesn't even have page numbers anymore to skip around. Just click "show more" "show more" to see the next 13 maps. :S
I do however like the what the video shows. At the very least, when casters put up the dang healthbars it won't cover up all the units so I just see pretty lights rather than the actual unit.
I don't know this seems really difficult to balance with the current units in the game. Pretty much every splash-capable unit has to be reconsidered and rebalanced, but if it could be balanced I certainly like the idea of less deathball-prone armies.
i cannot say wether it will be for good or worse until ive acutally tried it but i agree that something has to be done regarding the whole deathball issue although im not 100 % convinced that pathing is the thing to change, glad to see people trying though =) perhaps if anyone has played some 'quality' games could link up a video or replay to download that would show some of the benefits from this change?
Looks awesome both from player and spectator perspective, Blizzard make it happen! If needed, the balance can be adjusted accordingly.. we have 2 expansions coming anyway..
seems like a really cool idea for the game, i don't think well see it though, this would really change the game. Even if it did change it for the better i think there would be to many changes in the overall game play for blizzard to do this.
But this is the kidn of change that can happen with hots beause lets face it everythign will change ... things that are UP/OP now will end up with different roles
On July 04 2012 03:22 BlackCloud wrote: seems like a really cool idea for the game, i don't think well see it though, this would really change the game. Even if it did change it for the better i think there would be to many changes in the overall game play for blizzard to do this.
Nothing is ever gonna change if people keep saying that it will never happen and that blizzard will never do it and therefore give up trying to get them to change it.
HotS is coming up and blizzard has shown to do huge changes with expansions, from RoC to TfT for example.
I find the only reason this didn't happen often in BW was because you werent running around 120supply in 1 control group, you could have this effect if you control grouped properly.. Atleast I know that I personally don't just 1A around the map with this ball, I always spread my army out into hotkeys.
I have tested dynamic movement a bit and I think it feels really great. If you dont put effort into it it plays out just like one is used to but you just get more of a grasp to your unit control. You can design your unit blobs not just split them up. Like forming an arch of marines against lot of lings so more marines can shoot immediatly wihtout gaining more surface area. It still takes effort and splitting itself constantly is not easymode at all. It just gives the good players more tools to use their units effectively. Hots will throw every balance away either way and adjusting AOE is not as hard as many make it sound like. I can assure you. It looks great and it feels really good.
Edit: now that I think about it. What is the difference between "mm daybreak" and "daybreak dynamic movement"?
Can anyone let me know if mmdaybreak is STILL unavailable? It's been a bit since I published it as public, i would think it would show up by now. Searching mmdaybreak should bring it right up.... Or does it usually take a while for a map to be published?
On July 04 2012 03:24 MrTortoise wrote: But this is the kidn of change that can happen with hots beause lets face it everythign will change ... things that are UP/OP now will end up with different roles
It would be great to see it in HotS but I don't think Blizzard would be willing to make a change like this, ever. Balance would have to be overhauled for every single unit because it's such a huge change. I know it's been said but AoE damage would be totally different, and therefore all balance would have to be reiterated.
On July 04 2012 03:29 pzea469 wrote: Can anyone let me know if mmdaybreak is STILL unavailable? It's been a bit since I published it as public, i would think it would show up by now. Searching mmdaybreak should bring it right up.... Or does it usually take a while for a map to be published?
On July 04 2012 03:29 pzea469 wrote: Can anyone let me know if mmdaybreak is STILL unavailable? It's been a bit since I published it as public, i would think it would show up by now. Searching mmdaybreak should bring it right up.... Or does it usually take a while for a map to be published?
The whole "aoe spells will be useless" argument can not be fully considered without testing with actual people on actual maps since the terrain and choke points will still funnel the units and break the composition. This can make it so that aoe units perhaps serve to hold choke points instead of moving out with the entire army, thought I still think that will be doable, it's not like even pros can perfectly split all their units so only one gets hit by an aoe attack.
if someone has a replay of them playing kind of serious on with this "mod" please post a link to see how it plays out.
I don't really see the improvement. It won't remove deathballs; it will only make them deathsquares (plus, when units move through a choke, the clump up again). Overall, I just don't see how this fixes anything.
All of you people saying that the entire balance of the game would have to be reconsidered if this change were implemented are correct. But you seem to forget that this will be the case anyways during the beta of HotS, regardless of whether this dynamic movement is implemented.
With a new expansion, it is the perfect opportunity for Blizzard to make some core design changes and have the time to thoroughly test them unlike some patches they have released recently.
I was originaly a big fan of this, but reading this thread, I think that some people may have a point.
Actually, the best change to SC2 could be just to buff AOE and let the players micro their asses of trying splitting their armies, instead of making it easier through the UI.
Now this is something that Blizzard will never do, because it is extremely noob-unfriendly, but whatever.
what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
You're right, I don't like the current state of SC2. I played it excessively when it was in beta and post release but then got tired of playing it and watching it. I feel like one of the major disappointments for me is the way units ball up. I find it terrible. I think there are many who agree with me on that part. No I don't think SC2 is perfect and I will always not just criticize the game but will also try and inspire it to become better. It's the same reason I made the Stronger Team Color mod. I love what this game could become. I'm not trying to turn SC2 into Broodwar, but we should learn from Broodwar, not avoid it. If you don't agree with me I understand, but don't call it "a load of crap". I don't want the Blizzard response of "play another game" or "you can still play broodwar". Other games, including Broodwar don't have the potential of capturing the hearts of competitive gamers anymore. It's SC2's time to move esports forward, and I'd like to think I at least tried to help make it the most fun to watch and play as possible.
On July 04 2012 03:47 opisska wrote: I was originaly a big fan of this, but reading this thread, I think that some people may have a point.
Actually, the best change to SC2 could be just to buff AOE and let the players micro their asses of trying splitting their armies, instead of making it easier through the UI.
Now this is something that Blizzard will never do, because it is extremely noob-unfriendly, but whatever.
Without a change will this a buff to AOE would never come considering blizzards trend of nerfing every single AOE spell
It seems strange that so many people criticize SC2 for being 'easier' than Brood War, yet there is huge community outlash against one of the most significant changes from BW that actually makes SC2 the one that requires way more skill. With a unit clumping change, unit splits and micro adjustments against AOE becomes so much less fundamental that I think we'd see even MORE a-moving, not less, leading to even more stale engagements and one-sided games decided entirely on army composition. Am I missing something here?
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
On July 04 2012 03:45 Omegalisk wrote: So... infinite range magic box?
I don't really see the improvement. It won't remove deathballs; it will only make them deathsquares (plus, when units move through a choke, the clump up again). Overall, I just don't see how this fixes anything.
I don't know about your last part, but just playing around a little bit and then going back and forth between it and BW... I still think fixing SC2's magic box is better. If your select box is too little it clumps and if your select box is too big it will clump, but if you select inbetween you can keep your units in formation. It rewards accuracy and punishes sloppy play.
I'm not convinced of infinite range magic box, but at least it demonstrates what spread out units would look like.
I don't know if it will change the amount of micro required- need to add moving shot for that. But it certainly looks like it could make things much more spectator friendly and allow for more interesting flanking maneuvers.
Why do people not understand that if you increase the effectiveness of area of effect and you apply this change, you still have to split your marines just like you did before? Have you people ever even watched BW? BW had unit movement similar (not exactly like it, since another important aspect is that units actually bump into each other instead of sliding right through each other) like this and we all know how bw requires a lot more skill than easy mode sc2 (when it comes to micro).
Unless you've micro'd scourges, mutalisks, marines, dragoons, vultures,.... as if you're life depends on it, you have no authority here to disprove that brood war requires a lot more babysitting and attention as well as allowing a lot more micro tricks and so on.
On July 04 2012 03:59 LoKi- wrote: It seems strange that so many people criticize SC2 for being 'easier' than Brood War, yet there is huge community outlash against one of the most significant changes from BW that actually makes SC2 the one that requires way more skill. With a unit clumping change, unit splits and micro adjustments against AOE becomes so much less fundamental that I think we'd see even MORE a-moving, not less, leading to even more stale engagements and one-sided games decided entirely on army composition. Am I missing something here?
I think you, as well as a lot of people against this idea, assume that with formations, there will be no microing during actual battles. I don't think this assumption is correct.
As well, everyone assumes (or is placing heavy emphasis on) the only micro is min/maxing AoE damage. If this is the only micro you are looking at, of course you think this is going to destroy any micro and make things 'easy'.
On July 04 2012 04:09 wcr.4fun wrote: Why do people not understand that if you increase the effectiveness of area of effect and you apply this change, you still have to split your marines just like you did before? Have you people ever even watched BW? BW had unit movement similar (not exactly like it, since another important aspect is that units actually bump into each other instead of sliding right through each other) like this and we all know how bw requires a lot more skill than easy mode sc2 (when it comes to micro).
Unless you've micro'd scourges, mutalisks, marines, dragoons, vultures,.... as if you're life depends on it, you have no authority here to disprove that brood war requires a lot more babysitting and attention as well as allowing a lot more micro tricks and so on.
I agree.
I still think there needs to be some games played and uploaded.
I think this may be detrimental to the game. Unit control AND positioning are a huge part of micromanagement, and this mod would simplify it, aka dumb it down. Sc2 units tend to clump, well tough luck. In BW they tend to do shit all the time, and it didn't prevent the players from using them in a effective and spectacular way.
BW players constantly have to invest a lot of effort in micromanagement; they have to battle the inconvenient AI and prevent units from doing stupid stuff (such as the pathfinding). In fact, this is one of the things that make BW's skill ceiling so high, from what I gather.
Similarly, I don't mind Sc2 players having to produce more effort in micromanagement; battling the inconvenient AI and preventing units from doing stupid stuff (such as clumping together).
Nothing prevents the players from manually and individually managing their units before and during engagements. I understand that it can be very difficult in Sc2 considering the pace of the game, though.
On July 04 2012 04:36 Al Bundy wrote: I think this may be detrimental to the game. Unit control AND positioning are a huge part of micromanagement, and this mod would simplify it, aka dumb it down. Sc2 units tend to clump, well tough luck. In BW they tend to do shit all the time, and it didn't prevent the players from using them in a effective and spectacular way.
BW players constantly have to invest a lot of effort in micromanagement; they have to battle the inconvenient AI and prevent units from doing stupid stuff (such as the pathfinding). In fact, this is one of the things that make BW's skill ceiling so high, from what I gather.
Similarly, I don't mind Sc2 players having to produce more effort in micromanagement; battling the inconvenient AI and preventing units from doing stupid stuff (such as clumping together).
Nothing prevents the players from manually and individually managing their units before and during engagements. I understand that it can be very difficult in Sc2 considering the pace of the game, though.
edit: I meant to say during, not after
This change isn't to make sc2 easier, if anything harder coupled with an aoe change. It gives players so many more options
On July 04 2012 04:36 Al Bundy wrote: I think this may be detrimental to the game. Unit control AND positioning are a huge part of micromanagement, and this mod would simplify it, aka dumb it down. Sc2 units tend to clump, well tough luck. In BW they tend to do shit all the time, and it didn't prevent the players from using them in a effective and spectacular way.
BW players constantly have to invest a lot of effort in micromanagement; they have to battle the inconvenient AI and prevent units from doing stupid stuff (such as the pathfinding). In fact, this is one of the things that make BW's skill ceiling so high, from what I gather.
Similarly, I don't mind Sc2 players having to produce more effort in micromanagement; battling the inconvenient AI and preventing units from doing stupid stuff (such as clumping together).
Nothing prevents the players from manually and individually managing their units before and during engagements. I understand that it can be very difficult in Sc2 considering the pace of the game, though.
edit: I meant to say during, not after
No, it would not simplify it. Far from it, actually. There are some quality posts in this thread that explain why. Read them.
On July 04 2012 04:36 Al Bundy wrote: I think this may be detrimental to the game. Unit control AND positioning are a huge part of micromanagement, and this mod would simplify it, aka dumb it down. Sc2 units tend to clump, well tough luck. In BW they tend to do shit all the time, and it didn't prevent the players from using them in a effective and spectacular way.
BW players constantly have to invest a lot of effort in micromanagement; they have to battle the inconvenient AI and prevent units from doing stupid stuff (such as the pathfinding). In fact, this is one of the things that make BW's skill ceiling so high, from what I gather.
Similarly, I don't mind Sc2 players having to produce more effort in micromanagement; battling the inconvenient AI and preventing units from doing stupid stuff (such as clumping together).
Nothing prevents the players from manually and individually managing their units before and during engagements. I understand that it can be very difficult in Sc2 considering the pace of the game, though.
edit: I meant to say during, not after
No, it would not simplify it. Far from it, actually. There are some quality posts in this thread that explain why. Read them.
On July 03 2012 19:06 killerdog wrote: I really don't like the idea of changing something this fundamental to hwo sc2 works at this point in it's development as an ESPORTS.
If something like this should have been implemented it would have had to have been back in beta or before, now, especially with the kespa players coming in, there is so much invested in sc2 as it is now that it would be incredibly unfair to the players to change something as fundamental as how all the units move.
Imagine changing the football used in soccer by making is 25% larger, it's basically that. You can't have a stable Esports scene if the very fundamentals of the game can change with little to no warning, For sc2 to succeed as a sport it needs to be scene as a stable carreer, and large changes like this undermine that.
If the pro's who have been practicing with the current setup for almost two years now wanted a change then fine, but a lot of diamond and master non pros who just want matches to look prettier and force all the pros to relearn the game just so that can happen seems very unfair imo.
Just my opinion :p
Just like adding new units would? HoTS anyone?
This is a horrible perspective. "I don't want to improve the game, because it would be inconvenient for a lot of people and they would have to relearn things". I doubt much, if anything, would need to be relearned.
Note that I don't say IT WOULD improve the game, but if it checks out, certainly you WOULD want to.
Oh, and also, as a competitive soccer player, changing the size of the soccer ball isn't that big of a deal. Same mechanics, same touch, same everything. I can play with a size 4, and i'm sure i would do fine with a ball bigger than size 5. Xavi isn't going to start being horrible because you change the ball size on him lol. It's better if you don't use analogies because they always break down, this one sooner than most.
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
rewatch the video and listen to why this guy wants to implement this i never said BW was a bad game, BW is a wonderful game. that doesn't mean SC2 has to be BW or replicate parts of it. so the OP's main point is "it's ugly" which just does not make sense to me. if you don't like the core of SC2 and you're set on changing it, you're better off finding a new game.
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
rewatch the video and listen to why this guy wants to implement this i never said BW was a bad game, BW is a wonderful game. that doesn't mean SC2 has to be BW or replicate parts of it. so the OP's main point is "it's ugly" which just does not make sense to me. if you don't like the core of SC2 and you're set on changing it, you're better off finding a new game.
How does it not make sense? I would almost bet money on that the majority finds a huge blob, a deathball, ugly compared to units moving in a split up formation that makes it looks bigger.
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
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
rewatch the video and listen to why this guy wants to implement this i never said BW was a bad game, BW is a wonderful game. that doesn't mean SC2 has to be BW or replicate parts of it. so the OP's main point is "it's ugly" which just does not make sense to me. if you don't like the core of SC2 and you're set on changing it, you're better off finding a new game.
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.
I dont think it will be implemented, for this to happen blizzard would have to scrap all balance and start almost from scratch. Changing unit movement changes all match ups drastically, and i dont hink blizzard wants to go through the hassle. I wish this were implemented in the release, because it is much more visually appealing.
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.
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.
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
rewatch the video and listen to why this guy wants to implement this i never said BW was a bad game, BW is a wonderful game. that doesn't mean SC2 has to be BW or replicate parts of it. so the OP's main point is "it's ugly" which just does not make sense to me. if you don't like the core of SC2 and you're set on changing it, you're better off finding a new game.
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.
This, along with dynamic spacing (sticky units instead of 'slippery' units that push each other around, would make SC2 SOOO much better.
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.
I like this idea, doesnt have to replace current move, just add it 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
On July 04 2012 03:47 ptrpb wrote: what a load of crap. "i don't like unit clumping because it's ugly, i dont think anyone else likes it" you even say "i don't even watch SC2 anymore" and you try to make it more like BW. no, this is not what SC2 "needs". what you need to do is find something you like because you clearly don't like SC2.
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to make SC2 more like BW. It is several people agreeing that clumping is ugly and, more importantly, detrimental to both gameplay and viewing experience. Whether you like it or not, BW has proven to be a great RTS game and esport lasting around 10 years. Naturally, if we want the same thing to happen to SC2 we can look at the elements that made BW so successful and take inspiration. People have given good arguments as to why this should be implemented, "BW has it" isn't one of them of course ^^
rewatch the video and listen to why this guy wants to implement this i never said BW was a bad game, BW is a wonderful game. that doesn't mean SC2 has to be BW or replicate parts of it. so the OP's main point is "it's ugly" which just does not make sense to me. if you don't like the core of SC2 and you're set on changing it, you're better off finding a new game.
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.
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."
The only chance we have to make that real is: 1: Have this mod for every current ladder map. 2: Encourage tournament organizers (first the very small tournaments). 3: Give it time to grow. If Blizzard notice one day that more and more competitions use that mod and more and more players just playing costum games instead of ladder by using this kind of maps, they must accept it it one day and change starcraft the way people want.
This shouldn't be implemented on existing maps, they are too constricted for the most part. It should be implemented maybe on Tal-Darim and maybe there could be a remake of Sniper Ridge from BW or something...
How about something in between? Units still clump when giving a move/attack command, but make it so the clump isn't so compact? Like how BW was? Basically what I'm seeing in the video is units behaving in magic box form like mutas.
I'd really just prefer if they made unit clumping less compact. I don't know if it's possible though.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about people that like WoL? Hots is a big fuck you to them. If you like your army clumped you can still do so, it just takes an extra 1 click. If there are players that want their army clumped, and players that don't, what's a bigger fuck you to them all? Forcing clumped units every time you move? Or allowing both clumped and non clumped units? You can't use the argument that things would change and that hurts people who don't want things to change. Things will change anyways with Hots, so that argument goes both ways and is out the window. You can discuss why it would be bad, that's a better way to discuss it. And an even better way, would be to find a pal, play a match, and then post the replay along with your opinion on why it's terrible. That's probably the best way to do it because I think we're past theorycrafting now. We need evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about people that like WoL? Hots is a big fuck you to them. If you like your army clumped you can still do so, it just takes an extra 1 click. If there are players that want their army clumped, and players that don't, what's a bigger fuck you to them all? Forcing clumped units every time you move? Or allowing both clumped and non clumped units? You can't use the argument that things would change and that hurts people who don't want things to change. Things will change anyways with Hots, so that argument goes both ways and is out the window. You can discuss why it would be bad, that's a better way to discuss it. And an even better way, would be to find a pal, play a match, and then post the replay along with your opinion on why it's terrible. That's probably the best way to do it.
if you don't like your army clumped, it's a few more clicks your argument falls on itself a bit. as for people who like WoL, they can still play WoL when Hots gets released lol. it's not like this where you change how a game fundamentally functions and you claim "irrelevant" when i call you out on it. i've already told you why it's bad but obviously i'm wasting my time with this shit, all you people want to see is I SUPPORT IT, YES I WANT BW TO COME INTO SC2, PLEASE TAKE MY INDIVIDUALITY
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about people that like WoL? Hots is a big fuck you to them. If you like your army clumped you can still do so, it just takes an extra 1 click. If there are players that want their army clumped, and players that don't, what's a bigger fuck you to them all? Forcing clumped units every time you move? Or allowing both clumped and non clumped units? You can't use the argument that things would change and that hurts people who don't want things to change. Things will change anyways with Hots, so that argument goes both ways and is out the window. You can discuss why it would be bad, that's a better way to discuss it. And an even better way, would be to find a pal, play a match, and then post the replay along with your opinion on why it's terrible. That's probably the best way to do it because I think we're past theorycrafting now. We need evidence.
banelings?...tanks?....storm/fungal? EVERYTHING would be changed. it should only be worth discussing if theres a good amount of proof that shows if it would be good. and hots doesnt have a direct change on mechanics as this would, so you cant relate the two for your argument
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about people that like WoL? Hots is a big fuck you to them. If you like your army clumped you can still do so, it just takes an extra 1 click. If there are players that want their army clumped, and players that don't, what's a bigger fuck you to them all? Forcing clumped units every time you move? Or allowing both clumped and non clumped units? You can't use the argument that things would change and that hurts people who don't want things to change. Things will change anyways with Hots, so that argument goes both ways and is out the window. You can discuss why it would be bad, that's a better way to discuss it. And an even better way, would be to find a pal, play a match, and then post the replay along with your opinion on why it's terrible. That's probably the best way to do it because I think we're past theorycrafting now. We need evidence.
banelings?...tanks?....storm/fungal? EVERYTHING would be changed. it should only be worth discussing if theres a good amount of proof that shows if it would be good. and hots doesnt have a direct change on mechanics as this would, so you cant relate the two for your argument
His argument was that things would change and that's bad for those who don't want change. I'm simply saying that things are going to change anyways. This is a different type of change as adding and removing units, true, but the argument still applies. Anyways, this isn't gonna go anywhere like this. Before stating strong opinions either way about how much it would affect the game, play a match and upload the replay. Right now, the only thing people can really give an opinion on is whether the movement in that video looks better or not. As far as it affecting gameplay and balance, we need games. I'm uploading a match right now, and though I'm not the best qualified person to be testing it, it's gotta start somewhere. Should be up in about 300 minutes...... :/
I've been testing it out and it's actually not as terrible as some people are making it seem. It doesn't really take anything away from default, because you can still clump easily with one click, rather, it adds an element to the game. Army travel does seem a lot smoother and flows more naturally, like when you're moving across the map to attack. With Daybreak, there are chokes and such that fuck up movement so armies are still going to clump up eventually, just less often and at a slower rate.
These are just my opinions about this modification. I'm still testing. I could be wrong.
I do think that it makes things a lot easier for attacks though, specifically terran pushes. You can 1a move against the opponent without messing up your formation and having to position and spread your units out again. Saves so much time that even slower pushes start to become pretty fast. MMM or marine tank control becomes much easier to manage considering most of the micro is just kiting, keeping units alive. Units enter the fight in a perfect spread already so the player can immediately focus on keeping their army alive instead of making sure they're getting the best surface area contact for effective dps.
With zerg, I don't feel much of a change except in late game if you go broods, which spread out better, but even then that's not as big of an impact as non-stacked vikings. Fungal becomes less effective. I've got to say it's worse for zerg.
Protoss...meh... forcefield still fucks everything up and the main army continues to be best in a ball.
Overall, I feel terran benefits most from this change.
On July 04 2012 07:19 -Kira wrote: I like it, i would love a "keep formation" button in game.
Well thats the neat thing. You don't need such a button because if you don't put effort in it it will play out exactly as you know it. Test it yourself.
Selected units will either move or attack move to the destination while trying to remain in their current formation. (Wouldn't reform formation after going up a ramp and would change formation if destination is between units in the formation.)
sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
On July 04 2012 07:15 scph wrote: I've been testing it out and it's actually not as terrible as some people are making it seem. It doesn't really take anything away from default, because you can still clump easily with one click, rather, it adds an element to the game. Army travel does seem a lot smoother and flows more naturally, like when you're moving across the map to attack. With Daybreak, there are chokes and such that fuck up movement so armies are still going to clump up eventually, just less often and at a slower rate.
These are just my opinions about this modification. I'm still testing. I could be wrong.
I do think that it makes things a lot easier for attacks though, specifically terran pushes. You can 1a move against the opponent without messing up your formation and having to position and spread your units out again. Saves so much time that even slower pushes start to become pretty fast. MMM or marine tank control becomes much easier to manage considering most of the micro is just kiting, keeping units alive. Units enter the fight in a perfect spread already so the player can immediately focus on keeping their army alive instead of making sure they're getting the best surface area contact for effective dps.
With zerg, I don't feel much of a change except in late game if you go broods, which spread out better, but even then that's not as big of an impact as non-stacked vikings. Fungal becomes less effective. I've got to say it's worse for zerg.
Protoss...meh... forcefield still fucks everything up and the main army continues to be best in a ball.
Overall, I feel terran benefits most from this change.
I don't think terran would benefit much more then the other races. Sure it would make it easier against AoE for bioballs (AoE would need some buffing). But it would also make it so that Protoss and Zerg balls take less damage from AoE. And also Marine/Marauder balls are most efficient clumped up as tightly as possible against everything that isn't AoE say pure speedlings or Gateway units.
I want to see a game between two pros trying this out so bad :3.
Also all you people saying this will take micro out of the game?! I think the opposite.
I love it, I always felt there is something about clumping or collision size that was 'off' in SC2. I hope Blizzard considers this for HOTS, there is no other time to put it in.
I can appreciate those who prefer the current system, but disagree with the argument that this would reduce micro. If anything it would increase it significantly. You can't just organize your army a certain way and then use it forever - for one thing your army is going to want to face a different direction all the time, and secondly it's not like maps are a flat plain without any map artifacts.
i had my doubts about it because i thought it would remove more micro but i think it actually adds more and makes battles more dynamic. It would be better if the aoe radius was bigger and maps as well obviously. Still obviously there would have to be some rebalancing and that would require a lot of work from blizzard. Would love to see an online tournament try it out :p the playhem type tournaments.
to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
This should be combined with the sticky (not slippery/pushy" spacing.
And let's be honest. If you're casual enough to not have any issues with SC2, this won't be an issue for you anyway. It's a win-win, unless you're passionately in favor of turtle until 14 minute max death balls with almost no comebacks and sparse back and forth.
I have to say that visually it looks very nice and looks much more natural. How it feels during play is another story, but this is certainly a nice change
Whether or not this is more OP for a certain race, I feel that this takes too much skill out of the game. There's a reason why positioning is so vital in RTS games and making them all clump up makes it all the more balanced.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
Why? B/c improving pathing in this way will allow AOE damage to be increased. And increasing AOE damage is, as far as I can see, the only way to prevent the deathball.
Units which control space have to be implemented in the game in order to get out of the shithole SCII is in now.
The siege tank was nerfed into the ground b/c of the pathing engine. A small change like this will make AOE damage increases more tolerable. If they are more tolerable, then Blizzard might be willing to implement them.
If Blizzard does not make a change like this to the pathing engine, then increasing AOE damage will have much harsher effects.
An extremely high level of maintainence is required to continually de-clump your army, and if high AOE damage units are implemented in the current system to fix the deathball issue, then the de-clump APM sink will be too high for most players.
With the suggested pathing system, there is no reason that one cannot clump their units - simply click into the middle of the ball. But along with this change should also come AOE damage increases, meaning that clumping would be less desirable.
It's much too difficult to continually de-clump your units after every single fucking move command, hence why AOE is nerfed so much. This de-clump requirement actually prevents more movement around the map, as players have less incentive to move (every time you do, you have to spend time fucking de-clumping!). Hence why players move out in one big attack (that and the lack of high AOE, space controlling units).
And we need high damage AOE to bring an end to the deathball issue. Changing the pathing system will make the road less painful in the longhaul.
For this reasoning I support. Would also like to add that there would effectively be more micro in the game because players would be rewarded more for creating complex unit formations that help in the battle as the units would not automatically move out of formation. You still would have to have exceptional mouse control in order to pull off any decent positioning in a real game, and it would just improve the overall look to spectators, while being painful in the short run.
Please an attempt during HOTS beta would be perfect.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
I don't think terran would benefit much more then the other races. Sure it would make it easier against AoE for bioballs (AoE would need some buffing). But it would also make it so that Protoss and Zerg balls take less damage from AoE. And also Marine/Marauder balls are most efficient clumped up as tightly as possible against everything that isn't AoE say pure speedlings or Gateway units.
I want to see a game between two pros trying this out so bad :3.
Also all you people saying this will take micro out of the game?! I think the opposite.
I do agree, but in a real game against any MM ball, it would be ridiculous if there was no AoE. There will always be AoE and therefore, MM balls will never be clumped up as tight as possible, rather, they'd be best spread as much as possible while upkeeping as much dps as possible. I can see MM balls being clumped very tightly in early stages of a match, but the movement modification doesn't appear to have significant effects in early small engagements.
Regardless of the change, Protoss forcefield continues to mess up unit positioning, so the change doesn't significantly affect them much more. They just might have to put down more forcefields than before. There's not really any powerful AoE that Zerg and Terran can throw at Protoss anyway. Fungal is a joke damage wise, I mean it does serve as an anti-micro but protoss armies are best if concentrated in a ball against Z anyway. Terran AoE? Protoss doesn't normally spread units because they have forcefield to alter and cut off enemy positioning already, so EMP continues to hit the same amount of units.
And zerg vs AoE with the new change...They still get hit hard by FF and colossi/storm, so there's not much change there, no matter how spread ground units are. Z isn't about unit spread and movement, it's about engaging in the right places and at the right angles. Possibly there is a benefit for zerg ground vs tank AoE, but I haven't really played enough to see any significant effects. Speedlings still kill tanks and banes still go for the bio ball. The problem is, most of zerg arsenal is melee or close range, so the spread eventually clumps up when they're attacking anyway.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
for diamond and below, sure it would be easy. for people who play competitively, this will make it harder for all races seeing that lings will be running around 1 at a time, banelings will only detonate one at a time (unless you clump them up which would be stupid vs anything but bio zvt), protoss will actually have to micro as chargelots and stalkers will out run all toss tech units without either being on seperate hotkeys or ctrl + right click and manually moing them back.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
If anyone knows how to contact important people in the community, maybe they can be encouraged to have a test match or two and upload the videos on youtube. Please, encourage people like Day9, Artosis, ect to not only theorycraft but to actually play a good match or 2 and post the video plus thoughts. If you watch streams or the daily, try and encourage the player through chat to try out mmDaybreak vs a practice partner.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
for diamond and below, sure it would be easy. for people who play competitively, this will make it harder for all races seeing that lings will be running around 1 at a time, banelings will only detonate one at a time (unless you clump them up which would be stupid vs anything but bio zvt), protoss will actually have to micro as chargelots and stalkers will out run all toss tech units without either being on seperate hotkeys or ctrl + right click and manually moing them back.
As others have said, i'd love some pros playing this map to see how it actually looks like in action. One thing is a video on a map test just moving units around, another is real time testing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As sad as it is i think the previous posters are right un-clumping one's units is a skill on its own. But im open minded enough to at least see this in action.
Just like a patch with all the theory crafting and debate its only testing that will really show how viable this is. I would like to see a pro-game, all matchups in this.
To be honest I like it the way it is way more then the video shows. Now it is something you need to do, make sure ur army is not together. The game would be easier with that MM, which is not a good thing. I think it tells alot that the video maker does not watch starcraft 2 matches I think it is amazing to see MKP split his marines.If you change it terrans can move across the map with all marines and tanks in a perfect position, how is that fun to watch? As a player you have to make sure you pick the right fight and set your units accordingly. The marines against banelings is just a example, I am not saying it would make terran imbalanced at all, but I want to show how it changes the game. The same advantage occurs with zerg and protoss. Also I do not get why this is a thread when he does not have tested it in one single game, because it may look fun but it changes alot in match ups.
OMG lol this is genius. I wonder why Blizzard doesn't seem to have thought about it? When they asked why they wanted armies to ball up, they said it was just something they had to do to keep up with the times. (AKA, programming is better now, so they should be able to move around big armies if they want to unlike in BW)
However did they consider choosing whether or not to ball up...? like this xD So if they want to ball up and move easy they can do that. If they are pro/have good micro and split up armies before engaging, that's cool too! But right now you have to split it up so much or else once you engage it'll all ball up again >.<
EDIT: This mod is a little extreme. But why not do something in the middle? As seen in the example, even if you move like 10 matrices, everything is balled up again! Blizzard, we like to move around big armies easy, but it's way too hard to keep them split up. So why not have them still ball up, but much slower? So that over time, they would ball up again, but if you want to split the army you can -- and if you want to ball it back up, you simply move them into the center ;O
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
to be completely honest, the only buff that would seem logical to AOE is a radius buff. a damage buff would be ridiculous considering how much damage most aoe units already do.
if you buff the range of aoe units (not collosus or archons but fungal, storm, vortex, etc...), then you can deal with spread units alot easier (lings, mutas, marines, etc..) but you will still have to make good use of the aoe spells seeing that even if the units are already spread, i personally would spread een more if i knew aoe units were there simply to minimize the damage done even more.
this would also force players to either hide their tech, or come up with better ways of managing your aoe units to maximize their damage. it would also mean that there would be less need to mass aoe units such as collosus, banelings, tanks, and templar meaning that you can afford to invest in other tech paths as well as focus on getting upgrades faster.
there will also be less turtling (at least for terran and toss) seeing that for terran, you cant just sit behind a wall with 5-6 tanks and be fine until you decide when you want to attack which would mean that you would have to attack more often. you will also be using more mineral heavy units early and mid game meaning you will need more bases but you will be forced to defend them with smaller armies (especially vs terran) seeing that you cant simply clean up 16 unmicroed marines with 1 storm, a fungal, or a couple of banelings. you will need to multitask.
I feel that this modified movement would go perfect with the less resource maps that was discussed not to long ago.
^ this is all just based on my opinion though. by no means do i claim to be an expert at sc2 as all i do is ladder alot.
On July 04 2012 08:08 pzea469 wrote: If anyone knows how to contact important people in the community, maybe they can be encouraged to have a test match or two and upload the videos on youtube. Please, encourage people like Day9, Artosis, ect to not only theorycraft but to actually play a good match or 2 and post the video plus thoughts. If you watch streams or the daily, try and encourage the player through chat to try out mmDaybreak vs a practice partner.
I'm thinking that someone should also take a look at unit collision and spacing as well. I'm not good with that kind of stuff.
Also it seems like sometimes small units like lings dont' really keep their formation on some move commands.
We also need a map that has features this can benefit from (larger battlegrounds). I can try my hand at it, but I'm a piece of shit at map-making.
The real next step is to get this feature working the way we intend it to, and then look to modifying unit values, gameplay. I see that as the real next step.
This should be viewed as the stepping stone to achieveing a greater objective, the implementation of more space controlling untis/improving what AOE we have now.
On July 04 2012 08:23 topschutter wrote: To be honest I like it the way it is way more then the video shows. Now it is something you need to do, make sure ur army is not together. The game would be easier with that MM, which is not a good thing. I think it tells alot that the video maker does not watch starcraft 2 matches I think it is amazing to see MKP split his marines.If you change it terrans can move across the map with all marines and tanks in a perfect position, how is that fun to watch? As a player you have to make sure you pick the right fight and set your units accordingly. The marines against banelings is just a example, I am not saying it would make terran imbalanced at all, but I want to show how it changes the game. The same advantage occurs with zerg and protoss. Also I do not get why this is a thread when he does not have tested it in one single game, because it may look fun but it changes alot in match ups.
Another one that didn't read the thread posts I take it.
Yes, it's highly possible that is changes a lot of match ups (that's kind of the point with changes, to change things) and no it doesn't make it easier by having your army presplit all the time.
The AOE radius would be larger which would force further splitting away from the units and if you choose to walk with your whole army in a line over the whole map you could just get flanked on one side and basically have them wiped out before your units even reaches them if that's how "safe" you want to play it by presplitting. And this still isn't some drastic omgz auto super split thing. You can still clump all your units and mess with completely with misclicks
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
I don't get this, so on a choke AOE just kills everything because of higher radius and/or higher damage? That only solves things on open field. Also people saying that it makes the players split even more: wtf, so you split against the deathball (what is the problem), by making players split more... just let them split the deathball.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
I don't get this, so on a choke AOE just kills everything because of higher radius and/or higher damage? That only solves things on open field. Also people saying that it makes the players split even more: wtf, so you split against the deathball (what is the problem), by making players split more... just let them split the deathball.
AOE should be stronger in general, it has been nerfed to the ground because of the deathball basically and it should be possible to hold choke points more effectively and have a defenders advantage with AOE spells.
And this changes battles in so many more ways than just AOE but I really can't be bothered to bring it up for the 10th time because people never read the thread before they post in it.
The maps also shouldn't be looking the same way with these changes
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
I don't get this, so on a choke AOE just kills everything because of higher radius and/or higher damage? That only solves things on open field. Also people saying that it makes the players split even more: wtf, so you split against the deathball (what is the problem), by making players split more... just let them split the deathball.
AOE should be stronger in general, it has been nerfed to the ground because of the deathball basically and it should be possible to hold choke points more effectively and have a defenders advantage with AOE spells.
And this changes battles in so many more ways than just AOE but I really can't be bothered to bring it up for the 10th time because people never read the thread before they post in it.
The maps also shouldn't be looking the same way with these changes
First of all you want me to read 15 pages off comments?
Yes, but the chokes don't need to be too good, otherwise you can't attack with advantage. But you are just saying: yes alot has to change if you use it.... make a whole new game just for one new feature.
But please explain to me how it is fun to watch a whole army move across the map with awesome positioning? MKP can then just quit because his APM is useless. And please don't say he can still micro units further away because of changes. You can't just go change the whole game.
Oh and next thread I will look at all the comments to see if you posted -.-
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
I don't get this, so on a choke AOE just kills everything because of higher radius and/or higher damage? That only solves things on open field. Also people saying that it makes the players split even more: wtf, so you split against the deathball (what is the problem), by making players split more... just let them split the deathball.
AOE should be stronger in general, it has been nerfed to the ground because of the deathball basically and it should be possible to hold choke points more effectively and have a defenders advantage with AOE spells.
And this changes battles in so many more ways than just AOE but I really can't be bothered to bring it up for the 10th time because people never read the thread before they post in it.
The maps also shouldn't be looking the same way with these changes
First of all you want me to read 15 pages off comments?
Yes, but the chokes don't need to be too good, otherwise you can't attack with advantage. But you are just saying: yes alot has to change if you use it.... make a whole new game just for one new feature.
But please explain to me how it is fun to watch a whole army move across the map with awesome positioning? MKP can then just quit because his APM is useless. And please don't say he can still micro units further away because of changes. You can't just go change the whole game.
Oh and next thread I will look at all the comments to see if you posted -.-
not true. Players like MKP, MMA, MVP, hell just about all korean terrans can multitask like gods (ESPECIALLY the BW players. im sure they would enjoy this mod). this mod will make it so that you have to be able to do other things besides build a 150/200 3 collosus army on 2 base and win (i.e the squirtle build).
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
You managed to summarize why this would make the game more ezmode
He didn't as that's not what would happen with a radius increase on AOE damage
Then all his points would become invalid if there's a radius increase on AoE damage.
Fair enough but I hope and take it that you understood what I meant ^^
It wouldn't become ezmode with an increase in AOE damage and radius
I don't get this, so on a choke AOE just kills everything because of higher radius and/or higher damage? That only solves things on open field. Also people saying that it makes the players split even more: wtf, so you split against the deathball (what is the problem), by making players split more... just let them split the deathball.
AOE should be stronger in general, it has been nerfed to the ground because of the deathball basically and it should be possible to hold choke points more effectively and have a defenders advantage with AOE spells.
And this changes battles in so many more ways than just AOE but I really can't be bothered to bring it up for the 10th time because people never read the thread before they post in it.
The maps also shouldn't be looking the same way with these changes
First of all you want me to read 15 pages off comments?
Yes, but the chokes don't need to be too good, otherwise you can't attack with advantage. But you are just saying: yes alot has to change if you use it.... make a whole new game just for one new feature.
But please explain to me how it is fun to watch a whole army move across the map with awesome positioning? MKP can then just quit because his APM is useless. And please don't say he can still micro units further away because of changes. You can't just go change the whole game.
Oh and next thread I will look at all the comments to see if you posted -.-
I'll just quote Weerwolf again who made some points about why it would be much greater like this
"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."
And I'm not even quite sure what you mean with micro units further away and this wouldn't change the whole game as we know it and even so, that was almost done with WC3 when TfT came out and HotS is coming now.
Whatever balance issues this may/may not cause, i would like to see this be implemented. You can still cluster your units if you want, but overall the movement just feels more natural to me and makes more sense.
Would definitely have to be based around an expansion or something though as it would be a pretty dramatic change in game play, though one I would think is clearly for the better.
And to those trying to claim APM would be useless with this change, that is just BS. Just means your APM can go to better thing rather than keeping you units from hugging each other when you tell them to move.
On July 04 2012 08:50 Tictock wrote: Whatever balance issues this may/may not cause, i would like to see this be implemented. You can still cluster your units if you want, but overall the movement just feels more natural to me and makes more sense.
Would definitely have to be based around an expansion or something though as it would be a pretty dramatic change in game play, though one I would think is clearly for the better.
And to those trying to claim APM would be useless with this change, that is just BS. Just means your APM can go to better thing rather than keeping you units from hugging each other when you tell them to move.
We need more people like you in the community to speak up more often. Most people dont understand (because they dont micro) that when you arent forced to watch your army the entire game after aoe units are on the field, you can do so much more. i would 14cc everygame (i do so in most games anyway because thats the only way i can win) if I knew that I wouldnt lose my entire army to a baneling bust because for that 1 ingame second, I actually took a breath and decided to build something other than a 2 layer wall to protect myself. That wall is expensive to build. lol
TBH I dont think it made much of a difference in gameplay as I didnt really notice anything notable in the spreads as I still had to spread everything myself during a battle. I think pre-spreading before a fight is what will make or break the game.
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
Why the hell would you change something this stupid and small just because it's ugly? With good micro, you can already do this on a small scale.
A spectator sport must look good, viewers should be able to follow battles easily and units should be easily distinguishable on the screen. It should also mean that when armies fight there is more to be done that doing a-move and then casting spells. People who practice 10 hours a day get more out of units than people who play for 1-2 to create that Wow factor. Other sports do changes like this all the time. SC2 must also do this to improve even if it means causing some transitionary pain in short term.
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
meh. it would just completely change the game that i love, and not introduce any kind of higher skill cap. it might lower the skill cap, or maybe not raise it. but literally everything in the game would have to be rebalanced.
the warp-prism would need a health/shield nerf (because now losing the warp-prism to a turret but saving the 1 HT would = dead mineral line)
melee units would have to receive balance changes, maybe buffs, maybe nerfs. i'm not smart enough to figure out which, but they definitely wouldn't work the same.
banelings would need a speed upgrade and a massive radius upgrade.
chokes and ramps would need to be much larger because going near one would be suicide if your opponent has any of this buffed AOE. either that or you'd just have 30 minutes of sitting around waiting to get bored and run into death.
im not saying that it wouldn't work, im just explainign that they would seriously have to change everything about the game. i get that people don't like the "deathball" but it works. no good pros just a-move, ever. and battles are rarely over after one engagement anymore. this thread would have been much more relevant back in 2011.
edit: also expand first every game is boring to me.
Why the hell would you change something this stupid and small just because it's ugly? With good micro, you can already do this on a small scale.
small scale is cool in a small army vs small army basis, but when it comes to a deathball with tons of aoe vs a bioball with energy draining\shield draining aoe its a different story as that isnt small scale at all and unless you are constantly practing with people who know how to multitask and micro... you will neer understand how much of an impact something like this would change.
the lategame situation would actually be lategame. mid-game wouldnt be turtle to max army vs aggressive player who is desperate to stop the turtle from getting to a maxed out army. and the early game would be 15 nexus vs 15 cc, 14 cc s 15 hatch, or 15 hatch vs ffe.
On July 04 2012 09:05 Kaoriyu wrote: I just played a game on this map with a friend. Here is the replay if anyone wants to see it, Low masters T vs mid masters Z.
TBH I dont think it made much of a difference in gameplay as I didnt really notice anything notable in the spreads as I still had to spread everything myself during a battle. I think pre-spreading before a fight is what will make or break the game.
Thank you for this. The difference is more subtle than people have been theorycrafting and doesn't really force you to play very differently, at least from what I've experienced. However, as a spectator the difference is tremendous. Seeing the armies move a lot more naturally and not be in a ball the whole time makes it that much better. The terran troops moving and engaging and not in a perfect ball just looked really good. Also when terran retreated with their army, it was very obvious since they didn't instaball up.
It might be hard to see the difference from memory, but just take a look at the video in the op. As soon as you click anywhere on the map, those marines instantly ball up. When you compare, the difference is extremely obvious. I'm pretty happy with the results. More testing still needed though. Thank you.
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
meh. it would just completely change the game that i love, and not introduce any kind of higher skill cap. it might lower the skill cap, or maybe not raise it. but literally everything in the game would have to be rebalanced.
the warp-prism would need a health/shield nerf (because now losing the warp-prism to a turret but saving the 1 HT would = dead mineral line)
melee units would have to receive balance changes, maybe buffs, maybe nerfs. i'm not smart enough to figure out which, but they definitely wouldn't work the same.
banelings would need a speed upgrade and a massive radius upgrade.
chokes and ramps would need to be much larger because going near one would be suicide if your opponent has any of this buffed AOE. either that or you'd just have 30 minutes of sitting around waiting to get bored and run into death.
im not saying that it wouldn't work, im just explainign that they would seriously have to change everything about the game. i get that people don't like the "deathball" but it works. no good pros just a-move, ever. and battles are rarely over after one engagement anymore. this thread would have been much more relevant back in 2011.
edit: also expand first every game is boring to me.
Having such a thing has no affect on cheese/early pressure since its usually small army without aoe vs small army without aoe. It does not mean auto end of cheese. Yes it is a big change which is why IMO it should happen in HOTS since its a new game, having its own beta, with new abilities and units which everyone will have to get used to anyways. Yes pros don't a-move, I was just exaggerating a bit, but due to the pace of the battles there's less time for someone to do extra stuff.
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
meh. it would just completely change the game that i love, and not introduce any kind of higher skill cap. it might lower the skill cap, or maybe not raise it. but literally everything in the game would have to be rebalanced.
the warp-prism would need a health/shield nerf (because now losing the warp-prism to a turret but saving the 1 HT would = dead mineral line)
melee units would have to receive balance changes, maybe buffs, maybe nerfs. i'm not smart enough to figure out which, but they definitely wouldn't work the same.
banelings would need a speed upgrade and a massive radius upgrade.
chokes and ramps would need to be much larger because going near one would be suicide if your opponent has any of this buffed AOE. either that or you'd just have 30 minutes of sitting around waiting to get bored and run into death.
im not saying that it wouldn't work, im just explainign that they would seriously have to change everything about the game. i get that people don't like the "deathball" but it works. no good pros just a-move, ever. and battles are rarely over after one engagement anymore. this thread would have been much more relevant back in 2011.
edit: also expand first every game is boring to me.
if this change were to happen and players still allow a toss to get templar and robo tech early enough for a harass like that to do a ton of damage, then they have other things to worry about besides micro. as i said before this would make it easy for casual players and make games either alot shorter or alot longer. but as for pros, it would completly change the metagame and all matches will be very aggressive matches. your favorite turtle players (parting, goody, idra, etc...) will no longer be able to win until they start learning how to be aggressive off of one base (yes... zerg can be aggressive on 1 base. especially vs no wall terrans).
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
meh. it would just completely change the game that i love, and not introduce any kind of higher skill cap. it might lower the skill cap, or maybe not raise it. but literally everything in the game would have to be rebalanced.
the warp-prism would need a health/shield nerf (because now losing the warp-prism to a turret but saving the 1 HT would = dead mineral line)
melee units would have to receive balance changes, maybe buffs, maybe nerfs. i'm not smart enough to figure out which, but they definitely wouldn't work the same.
banelings would need a speed upgrade and a massive radius upgrade.
chokes and ramps would need to be much larger because going near one would be suicide if your opponent has any of this buffed AOE. either that or you'd just have 30 minutes of sitting around waiting to get bored and run into death.
im not saying that it wouldn't work, im just explainign that they would seriously have to change everything about the game. i get that people don't like the "deathball" but it works. no good pros just a-move, ever. and battles are rarely over after one engagement anymore. this thread would have been much more relevant back in 2011.
edit: also expand first every game is boring to me.
if this change were to happen and players still allow a toss to get templar and robo tech early enough for a harass like that to do a ton of damage, then they have other things to worry about besides micro. as i said before this would make it easy for casual players and make games either alot shorter or alot longer. but as for pros, it would completly change the metagame and all matches will be very aggressive matches. your favorite turtle players (parting, goody, idra, etc...) will no longer be able to win until they start learning how to be aggressive off of one base (yes... zerg can be aggressive on 1 base. especially vs no wall terrans).
with one storm that can not only cover an entire mineral line, but destroy every worker, it wouldn't be a matter of early enough to harass like that, it would be viable at any time. this would only increase the turtle style. pro's wouldn't be more agressive as there would be no possible benefit to being more aggressive. wall off, turtle up, and as soon as you get AOE, on current maps, it would be impossible to attack you with any other way than drops.
also, what do you mean "let the toss get templar and robo tech" no pro just "lets" the opponent do anything, that's the whole point of the game. if they could do everything and keep their opponent from doing anything, you would see that every time. the only reason it looks like they "let" their opponent tech up is because it is impossible to stop it without sacrificing tech yourself.
i don't know why you think it would increase aggressiveness, or even if it did, why any terran would ever not wall-off if he knew 1 base aggression was the name of the game.
The problem is not as simple as buffing AOE to compensate stuffs, you have to overhaul almost the whole game. Imagine if you buff hellions to make it useful (because let's face it, if this goes through, hellion is gonna sucks), it's gonna be hell when you let hellions get into the mineral lines; or right now HT can kill the whole mineral lines with 2 storms, what happens if you buff aoe and damage? People are gonna cry so hard. So to compensate that, you have to change the way mineral lines works, making the mineral patch bigger like BW, or change mineral patch position so that they have nice distance to each other. So to compensate that, you have to work on the way workers harvest minerals, are we gonna need more workers to harvest faraway patches like BW, or we gonna make it so that workers mining far minerals will move faster than other? Also to compensate mineral patch changes, you have to change maps. Every expansions on the map have to change so that it dthen again to compensate that, you have to change how the base look: ramp has to be wilder to make aoe less effective, base is bigger to accommodate more units,... Don't forget that you have to change how air units work too. Bigger AOE is gonna own air units so hard with the way they work right now.
So, even though I'm curious to see how it turns out, I'm not really hyped or anything. Just hope that this thread will not turn into that 1gasperbase thread all over again.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
What if blizzard knew people would say that starcraft 2 was less mechanically demanding than brood war so they made it so you had to manually keep your army from clumping together so that it wont be instagibed by all the splash damage in the game o_O?
On July 04 2012 09:42 Nazza wrote: holy crap! I can't believe it took us.... 2 years?! to find this out?
It didn't. There is a thread more than a year old here which also started a petition to blizzard. This is coming back now since HOTS beta is near and everyone sees it as an opportunity to make this change.
people are theorycrafting way too much. AOE is insane in brood war and games are in fact a lot more interesting and way less turtling than in sc2. One storm rapes all you drones, this doesn't force you to be defensive. This forces you to be the better player who watches his minimap and has fast control.
Thus promoting the better player to come out ahead.
EDIT: I made a separate thread regarding unit collision, since it's really a separate topic here
tl;dr People missing the point. MM not about aoe or micro, it's about breaking up the deathball and increasing engagement depth & dynamics. I tried the MM map and it doesn't change much. Deathballs are still easy to make and are still the most efficient army formation. Replays to come soon-ish (NA masters level) Instead of unit pathing/movement/AI, I think increasing unit collision would do a much better job at breaking up deathballs and bringing about more dynamic engagements. If you're going to comment/argue on any of the above points, read the rest of the wall of text in its entirety, or I will ignore you because you are an impatient idiot.
WARNING: Obnoxious bolding of words to follow.
I feel like people are 1) missing the point. 2) looking at the issue from only one perspective.
My take on the MM map & the Dynamic Unit Movement thread (cause in all honesty, they're pretty similar from what I've skimmed through) is the following:
Problem: SC2 engagements tend to devolve into deathball on deathball. There are a number of problems with this that I won't go over, since it seems most people seem to agree (as well as Blizzard) that deathball on deathball is bad. For what reason, we can disagree on, but the bottom line is that deathball on deathball =
If you mention BALANCE, you are definitely missing the point. This change is meant to be a possible addition to HotS, where balance as we know it will get thrown out the window - the perfect opportunity to tweak possible inherent game flaws. If you mention AREA OF EFFECT DAMAGE, you are also missing the point. Implications for changes to aoe damage is essentially a part of balance. If you mention MICRO, you are probably missing the point. The goal of the MM change is not to make micro such as unit splitting easier or harder. That can also be considered a part of balance. The reason I say probably, though, is that unit positioning and awareness can be considered micro, which I think is key in what OP is trying to do.
What modified movement seems to be trying to do is to encourage breaking up the deathball (as are many of HotS units) by allowing players easier splitting/spreading of armies. While I can see where OP is coming from with this change, I don't think this specific change to unit movement is what is necessary.
I've tried the MMDaybreak map against an AI real quick just to observe the unit motions and found that this change doesn't impact actual gameplay very much. Someone mentioned earlier (in this thread? or was it the other thread?) that the most efficient method is STILL to just clump everything into a ball, since you reduce surface area and, due to high unit (and dps) density, deathballs allow for the most efficient use of units. I'll test the map vs a friend and upload the replay when I get to it to confirm, but so far, this modified movement doesn't change much. Especially since units tend to clump at chokes anyways. So basically, even with this change, it still ends up being deathball vs deathball.
What I think (and has been brought up a few times on TL to no avail) would suit the OP's purposes better is an increase in unit collision size. This naturally causes units to spread out a bit more and can possibly make the deathball's radius so large that there's no longer any incentive to do so, except in very specific circumstances. My two cents? The breaking up of deathballs is NOT the primary cause for smaller skirmishes all over the map (though it is a key component); area control is.
Think about the state of ZvT a few months ago (muta ling bling vs marine medi tank). I think there was even a poll on TL about the most dynamic and interesting match up and, if I remember correctly, ZvT was awarded the title. Most people attributed this to the area control that came with tanks. Even if Zerg had a superior army, a bad engagement angle could mean his superior army gets completely crushed by marine tank fire. Thus, the Z had to be active in scouting and proficient in maneuvering his army around so that he can get the right angle to engage. This also had the effect of making run-bys and muta harassment more viable (whether it's because attacking into the seige line would be suicide, or to bait the Terran into moving out of position and opening a window in an otherwise impenetrable defense). From the T side, the Terran had to be methodic and careful about pushing out of the map, and he had to be aware of the both player's army movements and position. This lead to some very dynamic army movements and made positioning just as important as army composition. + Show Spoiler +
I, personally, would say that too many match ups in SC2 are too focused solely on army composition and don't take any consideration into terrain and positioning save for how big the map is and how wide a choke is.
All of this is due to the area control seige tanks gave. (This analogy also applies somewhat to TvT, but since both players get seige tanks it can sometimes turn into trench warfare essentially. Also, I don't play T so I have no clue about TvT other than it's heavily position based).
Going back to unit collision, let's say we have 11 min roach max PvZ Cloud Kingdom. Let's say hypothetically with the current unit collision, you have 60 roaches, 40 of which can fire at once (Ignore forcefields for this simplified example. Let's assume stalkers are just as cost effective per unit as roaches). What if roach unit collision was such that, instead of 40, you could only get 30 roaches firing at once? How about 20? If only 20 of your roaches can be attacking at that location at any given time, there would be much more incentive to split your army and attack multiple locations at once. This also applies to the Protoss, in that he will also be limited by an increase in his unit collision size and have the incentive to spread his army out to defend multiple locations at once.
What's stopping this from happening NOW is that, if I split my roaches into 30 and 30, the smaller unit collision size means that I basically have half my army against his entire army (it's like forcefielding yourself in half for him!). After he stomps half my roaches, he just has to march over and massacre the other half and I won't have enough time to do any real damage. If unit collision sizes were larger, however, he has less army fighting my 30 roaches (say, 60% or 70% of his army can attack at any given time), meaning not only do my roaches do more damage , it also takes longer for the protoss to kill the first 30 roaches. (Think 1 roach vs 1 marine 10x vs. 1 roach vs 10 marines 1x) This makes multi-pronged attacks more powerful and encourages more army movement, flanks, etc. This example can be extended to engagements in the middle of the map as well.
Let's say we find an increased unit collision size and change units/maps where everything balances. How might a mid-game ZvP engagement play out? Ideally, we might have the Z (with larger numbers of cheaper, lower range units) setting up a flank on the protoss. The protoss, having good map awareness, sees the flank coming before it's too late, and decides to warp in reinforcements BEHIND the group of Zerg units intended to flank; the Protoss is essentially flanking a flank. Now what determines who comes out of this engagement victorious is not only army composition and macro, but also maneuvering, preparation, and planning. Did the Zerg player anticipate the possibility of his flank being countered and leave an escape path? Did he foresee this, and decided pre-emptively to rally his reinforcements to a Protoss expansion, knowing that the Protoss would either have to warp in to save his mining probes or risk getting his army crushed by a flank? Did the Protoss pick an avenue of attack that will allow him to clean up the flank from a defensive position, or did the Zerg manage to bait the Protoss out of position and too far to clean up in time? There are so many extra positional and tactical factors that could go into an engagement like this that aren't present in the typical deathball vs deathball microfest/shitstorm (think typical PvT deathballs) that really should be in an RTS game like SC2 that are simply missing.
NOTE: I realize scenarios like the one I explained above do happen. However, I am hypothesizing that an increase in unit collision size (and a corresponding decrease in dps per area) will ENCOURAGE positional play and, instead of having the odd game where such factors become a major factor in an engagement, EVERY ENGAGEMENT will be planned out with such factors in mind. This also has an extra affect of adding depth to the game and giving more chance for the best players to separate themselves from the good players.
On July 04 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would be pretty pissed when two seconds of looking away from the minerals means my three SCV lines are completely destroyed by storms/fungals.
Build more base defense ? Be more alert ? Getting a good economy will be much harder now due to the harass options available and will take a lot more skill to do damage to your opponent and take lesser damage yourself. No more 2-3 bases on full saturation at 10 minutes and then balls colliding.
meh. it would just completely change the game that i love, and not introduce any kind of higher skill cap. it might lower the skill cap, or maybe not raise it. but literally everything in the game would have to be rebalanced.
the warp-prism would need a health/shield nerf (because now losing the warp-prism to a turret but saving the 1 HT would = dead mineral line)
melee units would have to receive balance changes, maybe buffs, maybe nerfs. i'm not smart enough to figure out which, but they definitely wouldn't work the same.
banelings would need a speed upgrade and a massive radius upgrade.
chokes and ramps would need to be much larger because going near one would be suicide if your opponent has any of this buffed AOE. either that or you'd just have 30 minutes of sitting around waiting to get bored and run into death.
im not saying that it wouldn't work, im just explainign that they would seriously have to change everything about the game. i get that people don't like the "deathball" but it works. no good pros just a-move, ever. and battles are rarely over after one engagement anymore. this thread would have been much more relevant back in 2011.
edit: also expand first every game is boring to me.
if this change were to happen and players still allow a toss to get templar and robo tech early enough for a harass like that to do a ton of damage, then they have other things to worry about besides micro. as i said before this would make it easy for casual players and make games either alot shorter or alot longer. but as for pros, it would completly change the metagame and all matches will be very aggressive matches. your favorite turtle players (parting, goody, idra, etc...) will no longer be able to win until they start learning how to be aggressive off of one base (yes... zerg can be aggressive on 1 base. especially vs no wall terrans).
with one storm that can not only cover an entire mineral line, but destroy every worker, it wouldn't be a matter of early enough to harass like that, it would be viable at any time. this would only increase the turtle style. pro's wouldn't be more agressive as there would be no possible benefit to being more aggressive. wall off, turtle up, and as soon as you get AOE, on current maps, it would be impossible to attack you with any other way than drops.
also, what do you mean "let the toss get templar and robo tech" no pro just "lets" the opponent do anything, that's the whole point of the game. if they could do everything and keep their opponent from doing anything, you would see that every time. the only reason it looks like they "let" their opponent tech up is because it is impossible to stop it without sacrificing tech yourself.
i don't know why you think it would increase aggressiveness, or even if it did, why any terran would ever not wall-off if he knew 1 base aggression was the name of the game.
not true. if you rush for aoe vs me, im going to scout it and im going to win simply because i dont follow what everyone else does. most of the time, the only way some gets away with rushing for any tech is if its not scouted. scouting is apart of sc2 and the people that dont scout dont win unless they either:
a. have alot of luck and blind counter your build b. have alot of knowledge of their opponent and blind counters the build c. maphack
and do you know how long it takes to rush for a collosus or ht w/ storm? why not just be aggressive with what you have and then tech while pressuring rather than rush for aoe units that may or maynot be effective?
Something to keep in mind, as the settings are right now, YOUR UNITS ARE FORCED into a death ball every time you move them. This just gives players another option and thus MORE control. This is an argument for this that is very hard to rebut. It's an AI upgrade and should be done for HOTS. It's really hard for almost every race's late game army to be seen clearly at a glance the way sc2 is now, this would make assessing a players composition/strenght much easier and it would also make selecting specific sized groups of units easier during a fight. It would be a healthy thing for stacraft 2!
If your army isn't moving around staying clumped, it would be much easier to retreat from a bad engagement. More skirmishes will happen. I hope we can see some high level vods of people trying this out.
edit: some people are suggesting collision size changes, the reason I disagree is because one of the things I like about OP's video was that the faster units like hellions and stalkers could cut through the army smoothly, I don't it would be the same if the collisions were bigger. Tight spaces could be more annoying too.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
read my other posts before assuming my intentions. thanks.
On July 04 2012 10:56 Reborn8u wrote: Something to keep in mind, as the settings are right now, YOUR UNITS ARE FORCED into a death ball every time you move them. This just gives players another option and thus MORE control. This is an argument for this that is very hard to rebut. It's an AI upgrade and should be done for HOTS. It's really hard for almost every race's late game army to be seen clearly at a glance the way sc2 is now, this would make assessing a players composition/strenght much easier and it would also make selecting specific sized groups of units easier during a fight. It would be a healthy thing for stacraft 2!
If your army isn't moving around staying clumped, it would be much easier to retreat from a bad engagement. More skirmishes will happen. I hope we can see some high level vods of people trying this out.
edit: some people are suggesting collision size changes, the reason I disagree is because one of the things I like about OP's video was that the faster units like hellions and stalkers could cut through the army smoothly, I don't it would be the same if the collisions were bigger. Tight spaces could be more annoying too.
But there not forced into a "deathball", every time you move your entire army you have to option(if you have enough apm available) to move units around while maintaining certain space between them or keeping them in what ever formations the speed of the specific units of your composition will allow. The control was never removed from players, its just been made more difficult to do than it absolutly has to be. And if anything, Wouldn't having armies that automatically stay spread just make armies artificially look bigger? It would hardly make it "easier" to judge am army strength by how big it is although doing that in it self is already not a good way of judging army strength.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
read my other posts before assuming my intentions. thanks.
I did. Your post should be able to stand alone on it's own regardless.
You keep arguing how nice it would be not to worry about splitting constantly so you can do other things (macro, drops,ect). Well I am bringing up how it makes the game easier for every race (which you yourself pointed out). You are defending a mod that makes the game easier to play, you have said it yourself. Some people have a problem with lowering the skillcap of a competitive game. But go ahead and ignore all my points if you feel it necessary.
I don't know why Blizzard has never made any moves to really try and address the death ball problem. (notwithstanding the new units) Every time Browder talks about "we're not going to make the pathfinding worse" it makes me question their competence. The aesthetics of army movement are so relevant to a game that's about finding audiences to watch armies fight each other that updating the pathfinding should have been a priority for the expansion whenever Blizzard first realized the prevalence of death balls.
Nevertheless, interesting army movement does exist in e.g. TvZ on the terran side, so I think with really good unit design it's possible to go about solving this without messing with the more fundamental parts of the game. Let's not forget how hard it is to have good unit design though, especially when Blizzard is constrained by having to design for six (nine, really) different match-ups. Approaching new unit design from the position of having an engine more suited to large armies should be a lot easier.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
read my other posts before assuming my intentions. thanks.
I did. Your post should be able to stand alone on it's own regardless.
You keep arguing how nice it would be not to worry about splitting constantly so you can do other things (macro, drops,ect). Well I am bringing up how it makes the game easier for every race (which you yourself pointed out). You are defending a mod that makes the game easier to play, you have said it yourself. Some people have a problem with lowering the skillcap of a competitive game. But go ahead and ignore all my points if you feel it necessary.
You can't make this argument before trying out the map. It's easy to look at a change and see what it takes away from the game, but hard to see what it adds. You don't know if battles might be slower-paced and more interesting this way, you just can't tell without a sufficient degree of practice with it.
You can't make this argument before trying out the map. It's easy to look at a change and see what it takes away from the game, but hard to see what it adds. You don't know if battles might be slower-paced and more interesting this way, you just can't tell without a sufficient degree of practice with it.
While I agree that things may come up that we don't know about with extensive testing. But you can't honestly argue that it won't become easier to a-move armies with this in place due to not having to split the units yourself. For example a terran can pre-split his army when attacking a zerg. And never have to worry about banelings. I don't think this makes the game better. IMO it makes the game easier. I believe players should be rewarded for having better splitting and multitasking.
On July 04 2012 09:58 NubbleST wrote: EDIT: I made a separate thread regarding unit collision, since it's really a separate topic here + Show Spoiler +
tl;dr People missing the point. MM not about aoe or micro, it's about breaking up the deathball and increasing engagement depth & dynamics. I tried the MM map and it doesn't change much. Deathballs are still easy to make and are still the most efficient army formation. Replays to come soon-ish (NA masters level) Instead of unit pathing/movement/AI, I think increasing unit collision would do a much better job at breaking up deathballs and bringing about more dynamic engagements. If you're going to comment/argue on any of the above points, read the rest of the wall of text in its entirety, or I will ignore you because you are an impatient idiot.
WARNING: Obnoxious bolding of words to follow.
I feel like people are 1) missing the point. 2) looking at the issue from only one perspective.
My take on the MM map & the Dynamic Unit Movement thread (cause in all honesty, they're pretty similar from what I've skimmed through) is the following:
Problem: SC2 engagements tend to devolve into deathball on deathball. There are a number of problems with this that I won't go over, since it seems most people seem to agree (as well as Blizzard) that deathball on deathball is bad. For what reason, we can disagree on, but the bottom line is that deathball on deathball =
If you mention BALANCE, you are definitely missing the point. This change is meant to be a possible addition to HotS, where balance as we know it will get thrown out the window - the perfect opportunity to tweak possible inherent game flaws. If you mention AREA OF EFFECT DAMAGE, you are also missing the point. Implications for changes to aoe damage is essentially a part of balance. If you mention MICRO, you are probably missing the point. The goal of the MM change is not to make micro such as unit splitting easier or harder. That can also be considered a part of balance. The reason I say probably, though, is that unit positioning and awareness can be considered micro, which I think is key in what OP is trying to do.
What modified movement seems to be trying to do is to encourage breaking up the deathball (as are many of HotS units) by allowing players easier splitting/spreading of armies. While I can see where OP is coming from with this change, I don't think this specific change to unit movement is what is necessary.
I've tried the MMDaybreak map against an AI real quick just to observe the unit motions and found that this change doesn't impact actual gameplay very much. Someone mentioned earlier (in this thread? or was it the other thread?) that the most efficient method is STILL to just clump everything into a ball, since you reduce surface area and, due to high unit (and dps) density, deathballs allow for the most efficient use of units. I'll test the map vs a friend and upload the replay when I get to it to confirm, but so far, this modified movement doesn't change much. Especially since units tend to clump at chokes anyways. So basically, even with this change, it still ends up being deathball vs deathball.
What I think (and has been brought up a few times on TL to no avail) would suit the OP's purposes better is an increase in unit collision size. This naturally causes units to spread out a bit more and can possibly make the deathball's radius so large that there's no longer any incentive to do so, except in very specific circumstances. My two cents? The breaking up of deathballs is NOT the primary cause for smaller skirmishes all over the map (though it is a key component); area control is.
Think about the state of ZvT a few months ago (muta ling bling vs marine medi tank). I think there was even a poll on TL about the most dynamic and interesting match up and, if I remember correctly, ZvT was awarded the title. Most people attributed this to the area control that came with tanks. Even if Zerg had a superior army, a bad engagement angle could mean his superior army gets completely crushed by marine tank fire. Thus, the Z had to be active in scouting and proficient in maneuvering his army around so that he can get the right angle to engage. This also had the effect of making run-bys and muta harassment more viable (whether it's because attacking into the seige line would be suicide, or to bait the Terran into moving out of position and opening a window in an otherwise impenetrable defense). From the T side, the Terran had to be methodic and careful about pushing out of the map, and he had to be aware of the both player's army movements and position. This lead to some very dynamic army movements and made positioning just as important as army composition. + Show Spoiler +
I, personally, would say that too many match ups in SC2 are too focused solely on army composition and don't take any consideration into terrain and positioning save for how big the map is and how wide a choke is.
All of this is due to the area control seige tanks gave. (This analogy also applies somewhat to TvT, but since both players get seige tanks it can sometimes turn into trench warfare essentially. Also, I don't play T so I have no clue about TvT other than it's heavily position based).
Going back to unit collision, let's say we have 11 min roach max PvZ Cloud Kingdom. Let's say hypothetically with the current unit collision, you have 60 roaches, 40 of which can fire at once (Ignore forcefields for this simplified example. Let's assume stalkers are just as cost effective per unit as roaches). What if roach unit collision was such that, instead of 40, you could only get 30 roaches firing at once? How about 20? If only 20 of your roaches can be attacking at that location at any given time, there would be much more incentive to split your army and attack multiple locations at once. This also applies to the Protoss, in that he will also be limited by an increase in his unit collision size and have the incentive to spread his army out to defend multiple locations at once.
What's stopping this from happening NOW is that, if I split my roaches into 30 and 30, the smaller unit collision size means that I basically have half my army against his entire army (it's like forcefielding yourself in half for him!). After he stomps half my roaches, he just has to march over and massacre the other half and I won't have enough time to do any real damage. If unit collision sizes were larger, however, he has less army fighting my 30 roaches (say, 60% or 70% of his army can attack at any given time), meaning not only do my roaches do more damage , it also takes longer for the protoss to kill the first 30 roaches. (Think 1 roach vs 1 marine 10x vs. 1 roach vs 10 marines 1x) This makes multi-pronged attacks more powerful and encourages more army movement, flanks, etc. This example can be extended to engagements in the middle of the map as well.
Let's say we find an increased unit collision size and change units/maps where everything balances. How might a mid-game ZvP engagement play out? Ideally, we might have the Z (with larger numbers of cheaper, lower range units) setting up a flank on the protoss. The protoss, having good map awareness, sees the flank coming before it's too late, and decides to warp in reinforcements BEHIND the group of Zerg units intended to flank; the Protoss is essentially flanking a flank. Now what determines who comes out of this engagement victorious is not only army composition and macro, but also maneuvering, preparation, and planning. Did the Zerg player anticipate the possibility of his flank being countered and leave an escape path? Did he foresee this, and decided pre-emptively to rally his reinforcements to a Protoss expansion, knowing that the Protoss would either have to warp in to save his mining probes or risk getting his army crushed by a flank? Did the Protoss pick an avenue of attack that will allow him to clean up the flank from a defensive position, or did the Zerg manage to bait the Protoss out of position and too far to clean up in time? There are so many extra positional and tactical factors that could go into an engagement like this that aren't present in the typical deathball vs deathball microfest/shitstorm (think typical PvT deathballs) that really should be in an RTS game like SC2 that are simply missing.
NOTE: I realize scenarios like the one I explained above do happen. However, I am hypothesizing that an increase in unit collision size (and a corresponding decrease in dps per area) will ENCOURAGE positional play and, instead of having the odd game where such factors become a major factor in an engagement, EVERY ENGAGEMENT will be planned out with such factors in mind. This also has an extra affect of adding depth to the game and giving more chance for the best players to separate themselves from the good players.
Except that AOE and unit collision (been thinking that this is the better way to go about this) are directly linked.
As I've stated before, I do not see changing unit collision as the be all and end all. It alone will not solve the deathball problem.
But changing collision is necessary in order to implement more powerful AOE. Personally, I believe high powered AOE (read, siege tank before nerf) is the key to allowing spatial control.
Now we have to differentiate between types of AOE. What I am specifically looking for is high damage, SUSTAINABLE AOE. Read: siege tank. Fungal/storm function somewhat as a deterrent but not as much as a siege tank.
That is also why I keep beating the lurker dead horse. If we are to make changes like this, then zerg NEEDS a lurker type unit in order to control space. That is the problem with the zerg race as it stands now, the only way to really control space is mass spine/maybe fungal (need a lot, lol).
I think the balling effect is actually good considering nowadays being able to separate your army a bunch and split is a mark of skill.
Honestly, I think this is unnecessary. AoE is good, learning to split and control the army is important in diminishing the effects of AoE which is what makes some amazing players amazing.
I've thought for a long time, and said, that unit ai and clumping will be the largest difficulty sc2 players face as the skill floor increases.
This isn't something that needs an auto-fix or a design change. It's a very clear "If you have the micro capacity to keep your units apart, YOU are going to benefit from it extremely (especially if you are terran or zerg). May the best man win."
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
read my other posts before assuming my intentions. thanks.
I did. Your post should be able to stand alone on it's own regardless.
You keep arguing how nice it would be not to worry about splitting constantly so you can do other things (macro, drops,ect). Well I am bringing up how it makes the game easier for every race (which you yourself pointed out). You are defending a mod that makes the game easier to play, you have said it yourself. Some people have a problem with lowering the skillcap of a competitive game. But go ahead and ignore all my points if you feel it necessary.
-_-
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.
I'm pretty sure that blizzards goal with sc2 is just to sell as many copies as possible. I mean, everyone here knows they will buy HoTS regardless of it having units clump up. SO really what is blizzards incentive to implement such a thing.
You can't make this argument before trying out the map. It's easy to look at a change and see what it takes away from the game, but hard to see what it adds. You don't know if battles might be slower-paced and more interesting this way, you just can't tell without a sufficient degree of practice with it.
While I agree that things may come up that we don't know about with extensive testing. But you can't honestly argue that it won't become easier to a-move armies with this in place due to not having to split the units yourself. For example a terran can pre-split his army when attacking a zerg. And never have to worry about banelings. I don't think this makes the game better. IMO it makes the game easier. I believe players should be rewarded for having better splitting and multitasking.
this is something that I think is funny. Have you even played the map yet? you still have to split your army. the only difference is that if you split your army and attack move it accross the map, it will remain that way unless the units have to clump to fit somewere. if i move my group of marines and marauders from one side of the xel naga tower (on daybreak) to the opposite and my army is presplit, it will remain split.
the only thing that has really changed is what happens when whatever you sent reaches its destination. in the current state of the game, eerything that you sent auto clumps as all the units are trying to occupy the same space and they clearly cant (at least on the ground) so they get as close as possible to that point. this mod just makes it so they dont auto clump.
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...
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
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.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: to all the protoss and zerg players bitching that this would make it too easy for terran, just think about it...
your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
and for toss players:
your army wont lose over half its health after being emp'd by 2 ghosts because you attack moved your army and looked away.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
nothing else will really change.
just think a little bit before you decide to toss aside an idea (no pun intended)
So basically you are saying that this would make the game easier for each race. I agree, it does make it easier for everyone. This is what you want? All this does is lower the skill-cap required to play the game.
Just think a little before endoring an idea that lowers the skill-cap greatly and compromises sc2 as an eSport.
You don't think better players should be rewarded for splitting their army themselves?
read my other posts before assuming my intentions. thanks.
I did. Your post should be able to stand alone on it's own regardless.
You keep arguing how nice it would be not to worry about splitting constantly so you can do other things (macro, drops,ect). Well I am bringing up how it makes the game easier for every race (which you yourself pointed out). You are defending a mod that makes the game easier to play, you have said it yourself. Some people have a problem with lowering the skillcap of a competitive game. But go ahead and ignore all my points if you feel it necessary.
-_-
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.
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.
ok this would kinda be game breaking. How do banglings trade efficiently with marine balls, how do templar storm the bio ball, and how will a siege tank kill your ball of banglings headed to the marines, ghosts EMPs cant catch a templar ball, viking balls won't form so archons won't insta kill, and the "ball" up is what makes certain builds work because the AOE will work against the enemy. The balling effect makes you have to work and split those marines, to keep your templar separated, split you broods, and MICRO.
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.
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?
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.
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.
just watched the VOD, at first glance it doesn't look like much has changed. A-moving armies still clump up because they try and form an auto-concave as soon as there is a target in range, so this mod could actually work out very well as the noobs will still be noobs if they don't manage their army right.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Watching the TvP vod makes so many of these posts look ridiculously dramatic. Especially in the case of terran bio which moves together almost identically in formation (Makes sense because they are the same speed and rarely get rearranged to fight), the terran player just let them stay balled up and they still made a nice concave and had large concentrated DPS. The difference for Protoss seemed to emphasize control group usage because the Stalkers move in a formation in front of slow lots and then make a concave wall as opposed to having to spread out first due to clumping with the zealots beforehand. It didn't really matter because Toss went through a ramp choke and everything lost formation anyways.
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.
My experience with presplitting an army is that it's very.... orderly, as in, in BW, you feel like what you are doing is very organized when you do it right. You never get the feeling that what you are doing is spur of the moment, but it seems like a very calculated type of maneuver when you split marines the right way against lurkers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ever heard of forcefields (aka temporary industructible walls)?
we have a HotS beta coming soon. blizzard would have to be retarded to not try this change for at least ONE patch during the beta. if it doesn't work then at least they can say "we tried" and then take it out But not attempting to make the game look better because of fear that it might not work is just stupid and lazy.
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.
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
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.
ever heard of forcefields (aka temporary industructible walls)?
What of them? Which came first, the bad foundation or the band-aid ability?
On July 04 2012 15:06 Rkynick wrote: This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
Those are some pretty good points. I still think that this mod will contribute slightly to better gameplay though. It won't completely solve the problem, but I do think unit clumping is part of the problem. I think less clumping will result in less overall DPS in fights, which means that there's less han-bangs or "do or die" engagements.
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
So how do we set up a model of what we want to see in the game? We need to fix collision //wading through troops like butter, and we need to implement stronger AOE. Specifically, units with greater sustainability/control of space. We can only settle on so many limitations. Blizzard is not going to make their pathing system archaic, but perhaps they might be willing to adjust the clumping issue.
Blizzard should implement a lurkeresque' unit instead of the SH, then. Siege tanks need a large buff. And collosi need to be replaced or revamped. AOE spells also need adjustments. This would provide all races with the core of units necessary for spatial control.
Also, what form would this take, a custom map? I have plenty of ideas for HOTS that can be implemented in a custom map - for all races - that would take the game in a direction I think people would like to see.
This is a awesome implementation of how to solve the deathball issue. It's a modifed movement mod.
Good Pathing without Deathball
As I already said it many times, Dustin Browder's "deathball because of good pathing" is a pretext. You can have good pathing without deathball at the same time. And the easiest way to do this is to make the unit stay in their original formation while moving. And this guy in that post just shows how easy is to solve the deathball problem and how profound the result is. Just watch the videos in that post.
Balance Issue: How Damage will be Done
It is important to note that people's main concern that AOE damage will be much less effective in this mod is not the whole picture here. A more spread-out formation will affect how the damage is being done in three ways:
1, AOE damage will be less effective
2, DPS density of ranged unit will be lower, because there will be less units shooting within a certain area. Just think about it as a deathball of 40 marines in the current SC2, their DPS output forms a "DPS density" in the areas where all 40 marines can shoot at the same time. This will be a very high DPS outcome in that area. But if the 40 marines are spread-out, only a few of them can shoot in that area so the DPS outcome will be much less, or the DPS density will be much lower.
3, Melee damage will be more effective due to the more surface area for melee units to be able to attack. For example, if you a deathball of 40 marines in the current SC2, the enemy attacks you with 80 zerglings. The 80 zerglings can only attack the marines in the outer ring of the deathball, but can't attack the marines inside the outer ring until they kill the marines in the outer ring. However, with 40 spread-out marine, every single marine will have their surrounding area open to melee attackers, so the zerglings can close distance to every single marine and attack each of them from all angles.
But that being said, you can still manually make a deathball by clicking anywhere inside the area of your selection in that modified movement mod. So, it is also important to note that a more spread-out formation will only affect those time when you intentionally not try to make a deathball in that mod.
The False Promises of Spliting in the Current SC2
There is a popular argument that the current SC2 encourages more skill gap by forcing unit to clump up together so players have to split their army with really good micro. And this is a good test of the players skill.
However, this argument is mostly invalid due to two reasons:
First, you have to split your army in this modified movement mod. Your army will still clump up intentionally or unintentionally in this mod. So there are still tons of, if not less of, situations that players have to split their armies just like they do in the current SC2.
It is important to note that because the units will stay in their original formation, players' skill to "make an original formation" is also a test of players' skill. "Making an original formation" is as hard as spliting your army in the current build because they involve exactly the same controls. You still have to select 2-3 units and move them away from other units and do it again to other 2-3 units and again and again. You have to do that and maybe in even more circumstances because now they can actually stay in that formation.
Second, the result of splitting in the current SC2 has a bad mechanism. You can only ensure that your army keeps the formation that you made by standing still. If you move or a-move your splited army, they will immediately clump up again, even when they start shooting right away. In order to combat this bad mechanism, players especially Terran players start to use hold to make their marines and marauders not auto-engage the enemy because they will clump up even if they auto-engage the enemy.
But because units can stay in their formation while moving, this in fact encourages players to do more micro because the result of your spliting actually stays after moving. Because the result of your micro will stay--your effort pays off--people will actuall do more micro rather than less micro in the new mod.
What is your thought on this? Is it a better spectator experience? Is it a better gameplay mechanic? Will there be severe balance problem?
On July 04 2012 07:44 0neder wrote: And let's be honest. If you're casual enough to not have any issues with SC2, this won't be an issue for you anyway.
Oh, so now not agreeing with you means people are "casual"?
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.
ever heard of forcefields (aka temporary industructible walls)?
What of them? Which came first, the bad foundation or the band-aid ability?
you're missing what came before both, the whining.
From watching the TvP match, you can tell that it really doesn't break the game.
Obviously, splash would have to be better, that's a given. I would say that i'd prefer if they weren't focused on DPS buffs, and instead were radius/duration/energy cost focused.
There are two fundamental ways that the standard clumping movement behavior is worse in terms of game design: It ignores the distinction between two different types of player input., and it removes a valuable tactical choice. It forces clumping and makes the player correct for the broken behavior.
There's one additional reason: The modified movement looks much, much better than the old style.
I honestly think the odds are stacked against this change... but we need to figure out how to gain support for this, because it's that good. We NEED to add this to HotS. Somehow.
Are there any professionals or other community people who could lend support for this?
So me and Fitzyhere were playing around on this earlier. To be honest, daybreak is a pretty bad map to test this on. There is not really "open" space to maximize the effect this could have on the game. Literally, in both the games we played it felt like pretty normal to me. If you put this on, for example, entombed or tal darim I think it could be shown as an example much better. I was going to upload a video of us playing, but really there isnt much to see on something like daybreak :L
On July 04 2012 15:58 LavaLava wrote: I really, really like this.
From watching the TvP match, you can tell that it really doesn't break the game.
Obviously, splash would have to be better, that's a given. I would say that i'd prefer if they weren't focused on DPS buffs, and instead were radius/duration/energy cost focused.
There are two fundamental ways that the standard clumping movement behavior is worse in terms of game design: It ignores the distinction between two different types of player input., and it removes a valuable tactical choice. It forces clumping and makes the player correct for the broken behavior.
There's one additional reason: The modified movement looks much, much better than the old style.
I honestly think the odds are stacked against this change... but we need to figure out how to gain support for this, because it's that good. We NEED to add this to HotS. Somehow.
Are there any professionals or other community people who could lend support for this?
I agree with you. I have already input all my feelings on why this should be implemented but I completly overlooked the visuals of it. Im not gonna lie... I had only played about 10 games total of bw and I started playing that back in december (2011). The way the units move in that game (even though sometimes it made no sense. lol) not only looked better when directed correctly, but it also seems alot more realistic rather then having 75 marines and 20 marauders holding hands. I enjoyed watching the video almost as much as i enjoyed playing the map. ^^
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.
So where is this magic level where suddenly this doesn't make the game easier? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? So it makes the game easier for bronze players, but doesn't make it easier for masters players. What kind of logic is that?
you're probably one of the players who sits and lurks and waits until the person you're fighting isnt paying attention
You can't be serious with this... Done arguing with you now, this is pointless.
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.
So where is this magic level where suddenly this doesn't make the game easier? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? So it makes the game easier for bronze players, but doesn't make it easier for masters players. What kind of logic is that?
you're probably one of the players who sits and lurks and waits until the person you're fighting isnt paying attention
You can't be serious with this... Done arguing with you now, this is pointless.
There is not a magic level(rank), there is a level of understanding that is needed. If 2 bronze players were to 1v1 and one of them had a better understanding of the game than the other, who would win.. its the same across the board jack. so when you have 2 high level players who have the same level of understanding of the game, both players know how to push their advantages and disadvantages. adding this to the game doesnt change the amount of skill needed in higher level play(especially on daybreak).
Not to be a bummer but the MMDayBreak Test Match is really bad... for two main reasons:
1) the players aren't splitting their units at all. I see the terran engage with a clump of units most of the times aggainst the colossus. I mean whats the point of that game? They don't even use the thing they're testing.
2) doesn't seem that high level to me. Looks like platinum or lower
On July 04 2012 16:56 Apolo wrote: Not to be a bummer but the MMDayBreak Test Match is really bad... for two main reasons:
1) the players aren't splitting their units at all. I see the terran engage with a clump of units most of the times aggainst the colossus. I mean whats the point of that game? They don't even use the thing they're testing.
2) doesn't seem that high level to me. Looks like platinum or lower
Yeah it's just low diamond play. I uploaded it because no one else was doing it. I just wanted to show the impact this would have on an average match I guess. Many thought it would just break the game somehow, that the movement would glitch out when played in real terrain with obstacles, but it shows that the game can still be played regularly. It's just 1 match and I'm not at all the best qualified to play it, as I've stated before, but it's better than nothing. The replay in the OP that someone posted is much better, though I'm hoping other people end up making vods. I'll try publishing more open maps as others have requested.
even if blizzards doesnt implement this maby gom or mlg(or other high lvl events) could be convinced in the long run. but we shall see. after watching the vid it really left me in shock and awe.
This would make playing against banelings soo much easier. Just spread your units and a-move once you see them coming. No worries of my units clumping up.
Blizzard is doing all sorts of crap to stop the Deathball from happening in HotS. Some of their ideas are good, some are plain gimmicky.
But when you get down to it, this single component of the game's movement behavior puts us in this bizarre scenario where players in games are desperately trying to keep their units out of a deathball, but as soon as they right click anywhere the armies automatically clump up into giant balls of death. And they have to be manually maneuvered back to something resembling what they had originally wanted. And you have Blizzard standing there going "good god, when will they figure out an effective, spread out playstyle! Let's help them, with units that just turn off next to other units- or wait, time bombs- or wait, what if 22 range?"
They even stated that the balance changes meant to discourage mass Thors, weren't really a gameplay or balance decision- the problem was that everything was too clumped up to see.
Another interesting issue, is that while this being implemented would obviously break some units, most of all Marines, they would be about 10 times easier to rebalance after that, and marine splitting, a very basic yet difficult action, would be easier. I know that sounds like heresy, but it would remove the huge, gaping, ridiculous gap that exists between the Tiny Gods that top Koreans use, and the frustrating AoE Fodder they represent to players from beginner and even up to decent intermediate level. This would make the game more fun for people at all levels--- and don't worry, marine splits will still happen, because balled units have higher damage output but less AoE survivability. This movement change would simply make splitting and arranging units less mechanical, and more tactical.
Best of all, armies are bigger looking, badder looking, and easier to make out. Imagine the big pushes cross map towards the opponents base, units striding instead of hugging, dust/footprints trailing behind individually. The armies simply look and feel so much more impressive, it's worth it just for that.
I've always been under the impression that having a ball of units is a bad thing and that the more skilled player would press display this skill by having his army more spread out. Wouldn't this mod just reduce the skill gap even further?
I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
On July 04 2012 17:21 stfouri wrote: This would make playing against banelings soo much easier. Just spread your units and a-move once you see them coming. No worries of my units clumping up.
On July 04 2012 17:37 densha wrote: I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
You'd honestly still need to do 80-90% as much micro for bio and banelings, you just wouldn't have to fight with your own units. Most of splitting involves grabbing groups and running back, running forward with them. And a permanently spread out army becomes very vulnerable to just about anything besides banelings and spell AoE. Players will want to clump mid battle, and then they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do now, split their units during a fight. The units just won't be actively sabotaging them as soon as they move.
Watched the replay, (TvZ) and i liked what i was seeing, the terran still needed to split his units in the fights, and the terrain also forced units to clump up.
Would like to test it myself tho, any EU map with this?
On July 04 2012 17:37 densha wrote: I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
You'd honestly still need to do 80-90% as much micro for bio and banelings, you just wouldn't have to fight with your own units. Most of splitting involves grabbing groups and running back, running forward with them. And a permanently spread out army becomes very vulnerable to just about anything besides banelings and spell AoE. Players will want to clump mid battle, and then they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do now, split their units during a fight. The units just won't be actively sabotaging them as soon as they move.
You're just making the change sound completely unnecessary then. Units that actively hate you is very StarCraft and the micro that emerges from such things is part of the overall character of the game. You should not be able to micro your units BEFORE battle, when there's no pressure or skill involved.
And even if you disagree with that, you should still see how unit clumping has emerged as a defining characteristic of SC2. Would you have Blizzard go back and fix Dragoon pathing in BW?
On July 04 2012 17:50 Aelfric wrote: You guys should save your breaths, everyone can easily figure out that this will never make it into the game.
Gameplay is way, way more similar than you think.
Well, isn't that exactly why it will never make it to the live game? It changes barely anything and what it does change seems to reduce the need to initially micro in battle which reduces skill and overall excitement when spectating.
I've just test it once, so correct me if i'm wrong but the Amove still make your units clump up as they will attack move to the point you defined. It's only on move commend that they keep their formation, people should test it before seeing a ezmode that make your army fight perfectly. It just allow some more tactical move that could be useful in certain scenario ( sometimes you'll better clump your units together, sometimes not ) which is cool, it's could be a new tool that allow better player to shine a little more than usual.
I'm not even sure that AOE need a buff actually, we need some test. I don't understand the complain about balance too, guess what there will be a bunch of new unit that will completely change the balance again, i see nobody here saying that they don't want new units because of that ( well i see complain about design but that's an other point ^^ ). Even if we need to do a beta and some patch along the way, i don't understand how it's different with such a proposition, it makes the game better, more rich, more tactical and it looks so much better.
I like this change. Imagine putting your units in formation based on where you engaged. Obviously if they held formation regardless of enemies/obstacles that a problem, but what was on display on the OP would be magical.
It's all too common to perfectly split your army only to have them all ball up again the second you need to fight.
On July 04 2012 17:50 Aelfric wrote: You guys should save your breaths, everyone can easily figure out that this will never make it into the game.
Gameplay is way, way more similar than you think.
Well, isn't that exactly why it will never make it to the live game? It changes barely anything and what it does change seems to reduce the need to initially micro in battle which reduces skill and overall excitement when spectating.
Especially in battle you still need to micro, if you a-move your units pre-split, everything gets clumped up again when facing an opponent.
The only thing this mod does, is that it will keep your formation when you normally move your units around. I think this will increase the intuitivity of moving your units, and gives players more reason to split in the first place, instead of your units clumping up after every move.
On July 04 2012 17:37 densha wrote: I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
You'd honestly still need to do 80-90% as much micro for bio and banelings, you just wouldn't have to fight with your own units. Most of splitting involves grabbing groups and running back, running forward with them. And a permanently spread out army becomes very vulnerable to just about anything besides banelings and spell AoE. Players will want to clump mid battle, and then they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do now, split their units during a fight. The units just won't be actively sabotaging them as soon as they move.
You're just making the change sound completely unnecessary then. Units that actively hate you is very StarCraft and the micro that emerges from such things is part of the overall character of the game. You should not be able to micro your units BEFORE battle, when there's no pressure or skill involved.
And even if you disagree with that, you should still see how unit clumping has emerged as a defining characteristic of SC2. Would you have Blizzard go back and fix Dragoon pathing in BW?
The argument you're making is a little bit "multiple building select" or "12 units" here. This change removes a problem where players can't directly control units, and have to perform actions to adjust for the AI that is actually telling their army what to do.
When you can click between units and clump them, or click away from units and have them move in a straight line, it means you have actual manual control over what your army does.
Autoclump is pure annoyance, and it's caused every single AoE attack and spell to go from normal sized to minuscule, and damage has had to be reduced tremendously. Area denial barely exists anymore. Units are allowed and forced to compress as close as they can, which increases damage output, shortens battles, and simplifies many games to one or two 5-15 second engagements. If it was feasible to keep units apart, the threat of stronger AoE would keep them apart, lower the DPS of armies, and create much more interesting, scrappy, and extended battles.
On July 04 2012 17:50 Aelfric wrote: You guys should save your breaths, everyone can easily figure out that this will never make it into the game.
Gameplay is way, way more similar than you think.
Well, isn't that exactly why it will never make it to the live game? It changes barely anything and what it does change seems to reduce the need to initially micro in battle which reduces skill and overall excitement when spectating.
It makes it way, way more exciting to watch. Look at the video. Units have presence, they look cooler, you can actually see them, count them, and appreciate them. They don't have to die as quickly, which means exciting battles happen far more often. It makes potshots easier, and could create a constant combat presence on the map.
It's a lot easier to start out spread out and clump your units than the other way around. Also, it's usually still preferable to create a tight ball. If the goal of this change is to make the movement look better, then I'm not sure if it will achieve this.
On July 04 2012 17:37 densha wrote: I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
You'd honestly still need to do 80-90% as much micro for bio and banelings, you just wouldn't have to fight with your own units. Most of splitting involves grabbing groups and running back, running forward with them. And a permanently spread out army becomes very vulnerable to just about anything besides banelings and spell AoE. Players will want to clump mid battle, and then they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do now, split their units during a fight. The units just won't be actively sabotaging them as soon as they move.
You're just making the change sound completely unnecessary then. Units that actively hate you is very StarCraft and the micro that emerges from such things is part of the overall character of the game. You should not be able to micro your units BEFORE battle, when there's no pressure or skill involved.
And even if you disagree with that, you should still see how unit clumping has emerged as a defining characteristic of SC2. Would you have Blizzard go back and fix Dragoon pathing in BW?
The argument you're making is a little bit "multiple building select" or "12 units" here. This change removes a problem where players can't directly control units, and have to perform actions to adjust for the AI that is actually telling their army what to do.
When you can click between units and clump them, or click away from units and have them move in a straight line, it means you have actual manual control over what your army does.
Autoclump is pure annoyance, and it's caused every single AoE attack and spell to go from normal sized to minuscule, and damage has had to be reduced tremendously. Area denial barely exists anymore. Units are allowed and forced to compress as close as they can, which increases damage output, shortens battles, and simplifies many games to one or two 5-15 second engagements. If it was feasible to keep units apart, the threat of stronger AoE would keep them apart, lower the DPS of armies, and create much more interesting, scrappy, and extended battles.
That's what makes it worth arguing about.
1) There is no problem with controlling units. You click a place, units go there. If that's bad, you micro out of it.
2) If AoE has already been balanced in light of the current AI, what's the point of changing how the AI acts? Should all AoE be changed again?
3) You don't solve any real problems. If you think "many games" are only one or two engagements, you're watching too much Proleague and not enough GSL/GSTL. You're arguing like it's 2010 and the metagame has matured wonderfully since then. Also, apparently people that have tested this are still saying a-move clumps units and you still have to split in battle just like how the game is now... doesn't that completely nullify your entire last paragraph? Again, it solves no "problems" but introduces new ones.
On July 04 2012 17:50 Aelfric wrote: You guys should save your breaths, everyone can easily figure out that this will never make it into the game.
Gameplay is way, way more similar than you think.
Well, isn't that exactly why it will never make it to the live game? It changes barely anything and what it does change seems to reduce the need to initially micro in battle which reduces skill and overall excitement when spectating.
It makes it way, way more exciting to watch. Look at the video. Units have presence, they look cooler, you can actually see them, count them, and appreciate them. They don't have to die as quickly, which means exciting battles happen far more often. It makes potshots easier, and could create a constant combat presence on the map.
I'm sorry, I've just never had the problems that you're implying exist. I honestly think you're probably just watching too many Kespa games and judging from them. This year has ushered in a new era of high level, amazing SC2 and not once has it crossed my mind that units don't have presence, don't look cool, that I can't see them(?) etc....
On July 04 2012 17:37 densha wrote: I don't think such a huge change to the game is necessary at this point for a couple of reasons.
1) As we see at the highest level of play, SC2 has become a very well developed game. Most matchups are very dynamic with a lot of back-and-forth. Yes, some viable strats for each race involve building up to a doom army, but there is a lot of action up to that point in most cases. I would also argue that doom armies/death balls are much more about composition (unit design) than pathing.
2) Unit clumping is actually proving to be one of those AI quirks that skilled players are increasingly able to fight against. While Protoss admittedly don't ever seem to need to split their units, Terran and even Zerg need to. For Terran the situations are obvious and the split micro is basically required at pro level. For Zerg, imagine a Z who comes along who can skillfully split banes to counteract bio splits and tank AoE. Splitting broods against mothership and spreading out units against other AoE is also increasingly important.
I think removing that kind of anti-clumping micro by introducing what amounts to "formations" would be the antithesis of what StarCraft is. It would really reduce the skill involved in bio and baneling micro just for one example. And if it applies to air units? Well, just imagine the a-move broodlord armies that makes possible, right? No, this would not be good for the game.
You'd honestly still need to do 80-90% as much micro for bio and banelings, you just wouldn't have to fight with your own units. Most of splitting involves grabbing groups and running back, running forward with them. And a permanently spread out army becomes very vulnerable to just about anything besides banelings and spell AoE. Players will want to clump mid battle, and then they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do now, split their units during a fight. The units just won't be actively sabotaging them as soon as they move.
You're just making the change sound completely unnecessary then. Units that actively hate you is very StarCraft and the micro that emerges from such things is part of the overall character of the game. You should not be able to micro your units BEFORE battle, when there's no pressure or skill involved.
And even if you disagree with that, you should still see how unit clumping has emerged as a defining characteristic of SC2. Would you have Blizzard go back and fix Dragoon pathing in BW?
The argument you're making is a little bit "multiple building select" or "12 units" here. This change removes a problem where players can't directly control units, and have to perform actions to adjust for the AI that is actually telling their army what to do.
When you can click between units and clump them, or click away from units and have them move in a straight line, it means you have actual manual control over what your army does.
Autoclump is pure annoyance, and it's caused every single AoE attack and spell to go from normal sized to minuscule, and damage has had to be reduced tremendously. Area denial barely exists anymore. Units are allowed and forced to compress as close as they can, which increases damage output, shortens battles, and simplifies many games to one or two 5-15 second engagements. If it was feasible to keep units apart, the threat of stronger AoE would keep them apart, lower the DPS of armies, and create much more interesting, scrappy, and extended battles.
That's what makes it worth arguing about.
1) There is no problem with controlling units. You click a place, units go there. If that's bad, you micro out of it.
2) If AoE has already been balanced in light of the current AI, what's the point of changing how the AI acts? Should all AoE be changed again?
3) You don't solve any real problems. If you think "many games" are only one or two engagements, you're watching too much Proleague and not enough GSL/GSTL. You're arguing like it's 2010 and the metagame has matured wonderfully since then. Also, apparently people that have tested this are still saying a-move clumps units and you still have to split in battle just like how the game is now... doesn't that completely nullify your entire last paragraph? Again, it solves no "problems" but introduces new ones.
1. This change allows for sending units to a place, or sending them in a direction. Player's choice.
2. Yes. It's not good right now. Instead of denying area or forcing moves, it insta pops armies, or does nothing. It's still bad.
3. The battles still aren't as good as BroodWar's, and you shouldn't have to go to the GSL to find a scrappy game. It should be a more viable and common option for *anyone* who plays the game seriously/professionally, if not also down in the beginner leagues.
Also, no, a-moving doesn't clump unless they find units to attack. Even then, starting from a spread position, they will be less clumped if they don't spend the entirety of the journey just cramming in closer together.
And again, this would solve some HUGE issues that have been inherent to the game since Alpha. They've had a shit time trying to manage AoE problems, and the difficulty of balancing it has caused, among other things, a drop in the player base, who are frustrated playing a game which is designed to be fair once your life is devoted to it. Obviously, the top players are the priority for balance, and should always be, but we should also be very cautious not to create huge gaps in what is enjoyable for other people.
The problems it causes are tiny in comparison, and basically come down to a several number changes, which are about to start happening constantly and frequently in HotS anyway. I'd actually argue that a change like this, by making it easier to design and balance, would cause fewer total balance changes to take place, not more.
Current AI: When you need spread out units: spread out + attack = they clump up When you need deathball: Attack = they clump up
Modified Movements: When you spread out units: spread out + attack = they stay spread out When you need deathball: clump up + attack = they stay clumped up
I don't really watch starcraft 2 any more. The deathball and the weak AoE are the reasons. With wider and more damaging AoE coupled with this pathfinding change I think the game would be better. It also makes it possible to use more dynamic formations, this increases the strategic depth of the game.
On July 04 2012 20:35 Fantaisie wrote: I don't really watch starcraft 2 any more. The deathball and the weak AoE are the reasons. This would fix the problem. It also makes it possible to use more dynamic formations, this increases the strategic depth of the game.
My thoughts exactly. Great to see this stuff being thought about. The goodies start at 2:00 in the video btw.
On July 04 2012 20:35 Fantaisie wrote: I don't really watch starcraft 2 any more. The deathball and the weak AoE are the reasons. With wider and more damaging AoE coupled with this pathfinding change I think the game would be better. It also makes it possible to use more dynamic formations, this increases the strategic depth of the game.
with MMDaybreak the core game didn't change at all too much from what I've experienced. It still got rid of the forced balling up though, and armies look a lot better moving around. They look bigger without automatically clumping and I really like it. Retreating also feels better. Now I'm curious to see a few games on MMTaldarim. With so much open space in the middle, we might see huge differences on the impact this modification has when compared to MMDaybreak.
We really need more replays from either map though, so please test it out with friends and upload a few.
On July 04 2012 20:35 Fantaisie wrote: I don't really watch starcraft 2 any more. The deathball and the weak AoE are the reasons. With wider and more damaging AoE coupled with this pathfinding change I think the game would be better. It also makes it possible to use more dynamic formations, this increases the strategic depth of the game.
same here, these two things have really destroyed the game for me... i hope blizzard at least test this
I LOVE this, but it reduces AoE potential by a great deal, and the game has been balanced around this concept too much to easily adjust to this movement change.
On July 04 2012 20:35 Fantaisie wrote: I don't really watch starcraft 2 any more. The deathball and the weak AoE are the reasons. With wider and more damaging AoE coupled with this pathfinding change I think the game would be better. It also makes it possible to use more dynamic formations, this increases the strategic depth of the game.
huh?
I mean that it gives you more options for how you want to use your units.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
Wow, again someone who did not read anything in the posts, or played the mod itself. nice false theorycrafting.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
If the game is too easy I would be pleased to watch you playing the GSL if these changes happen
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
Wow, again someone who did not read anything in the posts, or played the mod itself. nice false theorycrafting.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
Wow, again someone who did not read anything in the posts, or played the mod itself. nice false theorycrafting.
what's wrong about it?
sorry for the harsh tone but I think pzea469 (comment above) explains it the best
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
Zerglings are much more powerful against marines split up, its already been proven by the millions of games of BW where a Terran has lost because he forgot to ball up his marines.
Simply put instead of making banes, Zerg will just have more lings, which is more cost efficient because Zerg can now use the extra min/gas for mutas or tech.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
I believe that's typically something you need to test before you can say anything like that. But if your right, that would ruin the mod ofcourse! :-)
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
I don't understand this idea of a marine dying and 4 lings dying and therefore it's not cost efficient for Zerg. Just think about this for a sec. How would ANY rearrangement of zerglings be less efficient to tanks than they currently are now? Zerglings are already bunched up currently, meaning that tanks could get 100 percent efficiency on them. You can't get any more ling kills with a seige tank than when they're clumped up, like they are now. Also, if it turned out that zerglings DID automatically surround a marine, then that's just further proof that having a presplit army isn't always efficient. Having a marine surrounded means that marine dies faster, which is an advantage for the Zerg. That's why balling up vs zerglings is good, because they can't surround individual marines. Or maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
I don't understand this idea of a marine dying and 4 lings dying and therefore it's not cost efficient for Zerg. Just think about this for a sec. How would ANY rearrangement of zerglings be less efficient to tanks than they currently are now? Zerglings are already bunched up currently, meaning that tanks could get 100 percent efficiency on them. You can't get any more ling kills with a seige tank than when they're clumped up, like they are now. Also, if it turned out that zerglings DID automatically surround a marine, then that's just further proof that having a presplit army isn't always efficient. Having a marine surrounded means that marine dies faster, which is an advantage for the Zerg. That's why balling up vs zerglings is good, because they can't surround individual marines. Or maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
siegetanks will always shoot at the zerglings, always hitting the marines with those shells as well... what spread out marines do, is increasing the hit zerling to hit marine ratio.
here's some battles on unit test map with spread out marines vs ling/bling... in the end (first battle i had 1-1 on the lings but not on the marines) just see for yourself ^.^
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
First of all, that kind of spread takes up huge amounts of space and that kind of split would need maintaining constantly even with this change.
Second of all, without aoe involved such as banelings, marines clumped up are more efficient against zerglings so the spread in an engagement against pure zergling isn't more efficient and you also have to take into account that sure the whole terran army is split nicely but you will also be able to attack with a huge spread line of zerglings which means that 5-6 zerglings won't die from each single tank shell when the engagement begins
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
The only problem I theoretically see with your logic is that, if a terran splits up that heavily, what stops the zerg from just ignoring the marines and heading straight to the tanks? Holes in the line can and will be exploited with this kind of change.
On daybreak, why do they shift click when they move cross map? is there something so wrong with the path finding that they need to do that with this little change?
Honestly, I feel like this would make the game so much more awesome that it already is. By removing the need to always split, split, split during a battle, players will be able to focus on microing each unit more individually, to target fire, to dodge, to position each units better... Hell, battle would be so interesting. Could be even as good as BW battle were.
Fight would actually last longer than 5 sec... and getting away from the heavy infestors/sentry/collosus/emp would probably be a good thing.
Sure, the balance is all the be remade... but, whatever, what is a year or so of imbalance if we get a game that is that much more fun to watch and play long term?
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
I don't understand this idea of a marine dying and 4 lings dying and therefore it's not cost efficient for Zerg. Just think about this for a sec. How would ANY rearrangement of zerglings be less efficient to tanks than they currently are now? Zerglings are already bunched up currently, meaning that tanks could get 100 percent efficiency on them. You can't get any more ling kills with a seige tank than when they're clumped up, like they are now. Also, if it turned out that zerglings DID automatically surround a marine, then that's just further proof that having a presplit army isn't always efficient. Having a marine surrounded means that marine dies faster, which is an advantage for the Zerg. That's why balling up vs zerglings is good, because they can't surround individual marines. Or maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
siegetanks will always shoot at the zerglings, always hitting the marines with those shells as well... what spread out marines do, is increasing the hit zerling to hit marine ratio.
here's some battles on unit test map with spread out marines vs ling/bling... in the end (first battle i had 1-1 on the lings but not on the marines) just see for yourself ^.^
So a much superior and unrealistically spread out terran army barely beats an a-moving clumped up zerg army? What is this supposed to prove exactly? You know what's also happening is that when you're zerglings hit the marines, a large amount of marines in the back aren't doing anything. Whatever increased 'zergling/marine hit ratio' is completely insignificant in comparison.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
So your whole argument against this modified movement is that it ruins marine vs baneling micro, and therefore not worth it? You referenced a single match up, with a specific unit comp from each player; that would look completely different if there were infestors.
Your pre-split concept is way too out of context. You speak as if Terran can easily pre-split and auto win. Explain to me how on a map like Daybreak with tons of choke points, a Terran can keep his units constantly split so 1 tank shell hits only 1 marine.
Your assumption must lie in that Terran's can move with near 100% efficiency with pre-split armies as currently you can already set up a tank / marine wall with only 1 marine per tank shell. Map makers will obviously widen maps, but don't swing the argument to the other end where every map is going to be flat and open allowing for Terran auto-win presplit a-move. That would be poor map design and I don't believe map makers are that incompetent.
Please stop using isolated scenarios and extreme examples; this is not how they would play out in a real match. If you believe Terran's would be that effective, find a Z and go play a match and successfully pull this off.
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
So your whole argument against this modified movement is that it ruins marine vs baneling micro, and therefore not worth it? You referenced a single match up, with a specific unit comp from each player; that would look completely different if there were infestors.
Well, as a Zerg...and I am pretty sure that I am not alone, I can tell you that I would get rid of banelings any day if there was another way of beating a high marines comp. Banelings are just not fun at all, actually.
Implement MM, get rid of banelings completly... make the fungal zone a bit bigger (not a lot, just a bit, so pre-split doesn't make it completly useless) and et voila.
Interesting fact, too, is that clumped Mutalisk are really efficient against splitted marine and tank. He split too much and have too much tank? Clump your mutas, snipe a tank or two, make him clump is marine to defend against it... and then, bam, fungal.
I don't think that it is making the game HARDER or EASIER... it's just making the game more... alive, if you guys know what I mean.
From a purely aesthetic point of view, I like this! It looks a lot more 'natural' and armies are more 'epic'. Sure those adjectives are completely subjective but the clumping and jostling we see in SC2 has always been extremely strange to me (why can that marine nudge that tank?) and spreading the army out more makes it look larger. It definitely looks a lot more like BW which in my book is a good thing.
Sure there are balance issues but nothing that can't be fixed.
I'm fine with other mods such as "stronger team colour" and "custom decals", as they are purely for aesthetic purposes.. (at least, from my point of view). As for this mod, I discourage the implementation, simply because it changes gameplay for the opponent in an unfair way. It gives a disadvantage to those who have to manually struggle to split their forces in dire situations, where the perfect split to save your life won't always be the result. Human error is part of the game; we practice for efficiency.. this mod is an excuse.
I miss the old BW movement. Just seems much more rewarding for people that play positional tactics that isn't ruined with the single movement click of the army. For those saying that this would make AoE weak, that's pretty freakin obvious, but it also obviously worked in BW because AoE spells were much stronger. Storm was a stable part of PvZ afterall. Now people don't use storm as much in the MU. Marine splitting is cool and all, but remember there were things in BW that were freaking awesome too. Marines vs. Lurkers were some of the most entertaining fights in all of BW. More so than Marines vs. Banelings IMO.
You can only do so much with death balls in terms of viewership and honestly, they're beginning to make some games not as fun and players tend to play extremely passive because of the death balls. In BW, you would see people adjust armies beforehand to where it extremely benefits the person that puts the effort into it. Now, it's people swaying back and forth with death balls until both sides decides to finally to engage. It just made fights a bit less predictable in BW.
And people don't realize this, but the reason why the AI pathing is very poor in SC2 is because of unit clumping. This is especially apparent with zerglings as they try to funnel through one choke point when there's obviously another path around. Think of marine drops and zerglings get trapped around minerals.
Don't get me wrong. I like SC2. Just it's good for everyone to understand WHY people like the old unit pathing and why it made BW such a huge esport in Korea.
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?
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap arround themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
I think the battle would look differently than you suggest.
When you look carefully at the video, you notice that an important part of the video, is the beginning of the attack when all the marines are balled together. That part is to kill all the zerglings running in. after the lings die, the split needs to happen to counter the banelings.
If terran was pre split, zerglings would be WAY more efficient (getting a larger surface area, and the marines have a lower DPS density) The point is that pre split isn't always good.
grammar edit*
see, that is where you are wrong, if the zerglings wrap arround the individual marines and the tankshells drop, it's not costefficient for the zerg.
So your saying terran will always be pre-split to be cost efficient?
as long as he has tanks, and can split to a point where his tankshells hit only 1 marine and kill 4 zerglings or even more yes. yes always
edit: against zerg of course ^.^
So your whole argument against this modified movement is that it ruins marine vs baneling micro, and therefore not worth it? You referenced a single match up, with a specific unit comp from each player; that would look completely different if there were infestors.
Your pre-split concept is way too out of context. You speak as if Terran can easily pre-split and auto win. Explain to me how on a map like Daybreak with tons of choke points, a Terran can keep his units constantly split so 1 tank shell hits only 1 marine.
Your assumption must lie in that Terran's can move with near 100% efficiency with pre-split armies as currently you can already set up a tank / marine wall with only 1 marine per tank shell. Map makers will obviously widen maps, but don't swing the argument to the other end where every map is going to be flat and open allowing for Terran auto-win presplit a-move. That would be poor map design and I don't believe map makers are that incompetent.
Please stop using isolated scenarios and extreme examples; this is not how they would play out in a real match. If you believe Terran's would be that effective, find a Z and go play a match and successfully pull this off.
There's also the point that his arguement is 100% incorrect in the first place.
His point is that pre-spread marines + tanks will make lings ineffective against that army composition. This is 100% false unless the Zerg is silly and just A-moves everything. You know how ridiculously fast Marines die to lings when they go for the full surround and flanks? Now imagine that with a pre-split, where the marines aren't firing at the same time and Tanks are getting picked off.
Fact: Being clumped is better vs Melee units Fact: Being spread out is better vs AoE units
I don't get it - first there were complaints about how units clump in SC2 and now suddenly clumping is considered good for the game. Since you still have to manually move your units to desired formation I don't see a problem with OP's modification.
I'm fine with other mods such as "stronger team colour" and "custom decals", as they are purely for aesthetic purposes.. (at least, from my point of view). As for this mod, I discourage the implementation, simply because it changes gameplay for the opponent in an unfair way. It gives a disadvantage to those who have to manually struggle to split their forces in dire situations, where the perfect split to save your life won't always be the result. Human error is part of the game; we practice for efficiency.. this mod is an excuse.
I don't think you understand - this is not something that only one player would be able to use. Like 6m1hyg and other concepts on how to change the game balance, this is something that people are trying to propose to Blizzard.
I'm fine with other mods such as "stronger team colour" and "custom decals", as they are purely for aesthetic purposes.. (at least, from my point of view). As for this mod, I discourage the implementation, simply because it changes gameplay for the opponent in an unfair way. It gives a disadvantage to those who have to manually struggle to split their forces in dire situations, where the perfect split to save your life won't always be the result. Human error is part of the game; we practice for efficiency.. this mod is an excuse.
Read the OP next time, please.
It's a custom map, a test map... no one can use it to gain an unfair advantage. It's just for the sake of testing what would SC2 look like if it was implemented.
Does any one else think daybreak isn't a good map to test this? It is mostly turns and if there is open area is isn't extremely huge(which is what this mod needs). The units clump up when they go into the turns even with modified movement. Could someone make an MMTal'darim altar or something like that? (also take the rocks off of the third )
On July 05 2012 00:10 FragRaptor wrote: Does any one else think daybreak isn't a good map to test this? It is mostly turns and if there is open area is isn't extremely huge(which is what this mod needs). The units clump up when they go into the turns even with modified movement. Could someone make an MMTal'darim altar or something like that? (also take the rocks off of the third )
There is an MMTaldarim, check the OP for the exact name.
The test seemed interesting and I do like how it is small. Personally, I don't like how units naturally clump just by moving is SC2. Not because I don't like splitting them, because I don't mind that. But I like the focus of micro to be using units, rather then fighting against their AI. The change did not seem to prevent clumping if terrain was involved or a there was a lot of back and fourth, but did allow the players to move their army across the field without have to slip every half a screen.
I don't know if it can be added in, but HotS is a good place to do so subtle things to the pathing and make the game a bit better. I don't think Blizzard will neglect this, since the people there most likely want to make the best game they can. Hopefully they look at this and put it into the bag of ideas they have.
i think the main reason this appeals to me as a player is that it would give mapmakers more incentive to design maps different; particularly, more openly. maps are so narrow near the mains and focused around one giant hole of space in the middle. that design philosophy is so uninspiring to me and i'd assume to most people who enjoy this game.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
On July 04 2012 07:26 dNa wrote: sorry, i don't like it at all... i want my units to clump up and have to spread them manually in the battle... that's what makes marine micro so awesome... this is just "hey look, i can have all my marines split 2minutes before the actual fight happens" ... great, who cares... please don't take micro out of the game. thank you.
Please read the comments in the thread before you just make assumptions out of thin air.
It wouldn't remove the micro because AOE radius/damage would most likely be buffed along with it which would make it so that you still have to split the same amount when you are already spread and even more if you choose to stay clumped all the time still.
the way the movement is presented on the video makes it so that the units stay spread out the way you did no matter how far you do it...
spreading out clumped stuff is about the only thing that requires skill at this point, if you take this out, this game will be too easy for my taste.
sorry, if anything i'd be fine, if the units have a bigger "individual space" per unit, which means the units are farer spread but still tend to clump.. but the way this is, the units don't run to the center point, but instead run the same distance as the unit in the middle towards the point. That means there will be a point where you have spread out wide enough, no matter how much you buff all the AOE damage/range.
And please keep in mind that in NO point of a battle a "ball" formation is good for your army. you want in arcs. So all you actually do with this idea is making the "moving arround" of the armies slightly more appealing to the watcher, while at the same time taking out all the micro skill that is involved, lowering the skill ceiling by alot. and - if i remember correctly - people think sc2 is easy enough, right?
anyway, that's just my opinion, as long as fans of this stay on their own maps and it doesn't get picked up by blizzard (which it won't) i will be totally fine with it.
The thing is that if you have your units presplit like the marines in the vid, then yeah, you're safe from AoE, but your army also can't attack in that position or you'd be extremely inefficient. Moving your army around presplit is one thing, but attacking with it is different. Even though they try to keep their formation, when you attack an enemy, the army is going to gather together since all the units will put themselves in range to attack. They just won't clump up into perfect ball shapes with MM. When this happens, AoE works perfectly fine. You can't have both though. You can't be presplit and engage while staying presplit. It just wouldn't work. This is assuming the map even has that much space to maneuver.
Testing in MMTaldarim is required to truly settle this though, since MMDaybreak didn't provide enough space to really see the full effect of this change.
depends on what composition your opponent has. if it involves banelings: yes you can stay in a presplit formation because as long as banelings don't kill at least 3 marines per baneling they won't be costefficient.
this is how micro is supposed to look. imagine the same fight with your mod... it would just be 40 marines 1 by 1, 2 banelings would die to kill 1 marine, siegetanks would kill 4 zerglings and 1 marine with 1 blow because the zerglings wrap themselves arround individual marines. There would be no micro whatsoever as soon as the fight begins, for terran at least, and i hardly think that zerg would be able to do anything good.
can these people please read the thread? AOE's power will have to be increased. The mod gives you more options, if you don't understand that, pitty.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
Here we go with the, there's already brood war, play it argument.
I already like sc2 the way it is but I want it to be better obviously, especially as a spectator sport and these are things that personally I think would make it better so why the hell would I not want it?
What would playing the bw custom map get me as a spectator if it was never used in tournaments by pro players? Nothing.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Most people that are aggainst this seem to always say the same thing:
"It takes out the skill of splitting units in the middle of a battle"
Which to me is exactly the same as people were saying about automining, rally points, and so on. Watching a player fight aggainst the computer's mechanics is nothing to be amazed at. The units clump automatically independent of the player's skill. It's as cool to watch MKP split marines as it's cool to watch Bisu click on 10 gateways in 1s. Cool trick, but nothing more than just overcoming a handicap of the game.
Nevertheless, with this mod you can still watch splitting. It just is calculated and premeditated. A player can always clump his marines so the zerg makes banelings. But then he splits them in the last minute, to make the banes cost inefective. On the other hand, we can see much more tactical positions with the army. Players would know that they're not wasting actions by spreading units in a specific way like it happens now because they wouldn't disappear by a move command.
Also, this would be good for those that complain the defenders advantage is too small and should be bigger: we see many players making a beautiful concave when they're expecting an attack. Then the attacker baits, the defender clicks in and his units move. Boom. All his work wasted. The units got clumped again and he has to redo it all over if he wants to defend with a concave. At that time the attacker can now go knowing the defender is clumped and his advantage minimized.
For those that complain about balance as well. It's true. It would most likely unbalance the game in unexpected ways. But you can't theorize about it without even seeing it in action. Months ago Idra said Stephano's style would be figured out and he would go back to his place. If even him can be so wrong about a complete style of the race he plays, who are you to come here say this will break the game? And even if it indeed breaks the game, i believe it's in the best interest of Blizzard to see the long term future, and HoTS is a great opportunity to test it, at least in beta. As many people have said it looks and feels more natural and epic with the units spread out. Imagine the amount of tactis pre splitting could bring to pro play. As a spectator that would make me want to watch this game more.
And just as a final request: Mentioning the word BW in any context, question or statement, will only have Blizzard guys' brains flip up and say "Broodwar is a great game, and you can go play it if you want." There's no use to use that word, because apparently they don't want to have anything to do with it, it only seems to put out those premade replies and completely ignore the question.
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
On July 05 2012 01:04 Apolo wrote: Most people that are aggainst this seem to always say the same thing:
"It takes out the skill of splitting units in the middle of a battle"
Which to me is exactly the same as people were saying about automining, rally points, and so on. Watching a player fight aggainst the computer's mechanics is nothing to be amazed at. The units clump automatically independent of the player's skill. It's as cool to watch MKP split marines as it's cool to watch Bisu click on 10 gateways in 1s. Cool trick, but nothing more than just overcoming a handicap of the game.
Nevertheless, with this mod you can still watch splitting. It just is calculated and premeditated. A player can always clump his marines so the zerg makes banelings. But then he splits them in the last minute, to make the banes cost inefective. On the other hand, we can see much more tactical positions with the army. Players would know that they're not wasting actions by spreading units in a specific way like it happens now because they wouldn't disappear by a move command.
Well, not only that... but it would probably open the way for more awesome micro than marine splitting, since the battles will actually last longer than 5 sec and will give time to good players to micro units individually or little group by little group.
Seriously... right now, it's pretty much always : "A ball of units vs a ball of units, the fight last 3 sec"... It would be totally different and I don't think that it would be for the worst.
And a guy like MKP that can split is marine will be able to actually do even better shits... like, clumping or splitting little group of marines on the spot if needed. Splitting against infestor or banelings, grouping against mutas and lings... backing up is injured marines behind a row of full health marauders or marines, for them to tank new lings waves... Focus-firing efficiently with three different group of blue-fames hellion, kiting ultras around like a boss by just stimming the marauders or the marines that are in range with the ultras... etc, etc. All that become actually viable and possible, because the fights last more than a few seconds and because your units are not all in a big single ball or two big balls. And, that's just in ZvT, for the Terran side. There's a tons of posibilities.
Rebalancing is a issue, yes... but I feel that it would totally be for the greater good.
I don't think this mod has so much to do with bw but it has much more in common with the movement in wc3 where the units stayed in formation. In fact it was optional in wc3 to select one or the other army movement setting either formation or clump/ball.
On July 04 2012 23:58 Deimos0 wrote: I don't get it - first there were complaints about how units clump in SC2 and now suddenly clumping is considered good for the game. Since you still have to manually move your units to desired formation I don't see a problem with OP's modification.
Lol, I agree completely. Soon after SC2 came out EVERYONE bitched and whined about how much the game revolves around deathballs. Now we get some video showing a mod that helps keep things from auto-clumping into that Deathball and half the community suddenly loves their deathballs.
The problem is that it is Human nature to be a little afraid of change, and way too many people are going to see the non-clumping units and think "Holy #&^% thats a huge change!" then make a snap judgment about it. The handful of people who actually test the mod and see that it actually does not impact the game overly much then get drowned out by the whine of the masses.
If more people would post AFTER they tried a game or two of the mod, and actually spent some time thinking about the implications and ramifications we might see a lot less bitching. Sadly, this is not how the internet works and spot judgments will continue to be made.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Yeah, you want a game to be better... by being worse? Because removing stuff like MBS, unlimited unitselection is ultimately making the game stupider than what it is supposed to be. And it won't make the actual game better, the same flaws that are in the game now that encourages deathballplay will still be there, but pulling off the deathball mechanicswise will only be harder.
I will keep repeating the same thing in these threads, SC2 the way it's been designed is encouraging deathball-play to a certain degree, and that won't change by making the game stupider so a deathball is harder to pull off.
What you want is something that encourages fighting on multiple fronts (which will also raise the need for multitasking), encourages faster expansions and in general, punishes big balls of units a-moving their way to victory. How could this be achieved?
For one thing, less resources (patches) pr. base is one way to go (imo), which will force players to expand faster and more often. Maybe maps should be tweaked a bit too so a player can't camp one spot with almost all their units and still have a perfectly acceptable response-time to harassment at any of their bases.
Also, AOE should be scary as hell in the game. Currently it really isn't as scary as it should be, but you can't just buff AOE in the current state of SC2.
There's multiple ways to go about the game to "fix" a deathballproblem instead of going back too stupid shit like BW. Lack of MBS and unlimited unitselection was NOT what made the game what it was/is.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Yeah, you want a game to be better... by being worse? Because removing stuff like MBS, unlimited unitselection is ultimately making the game stupider than what it is supposed to be. And it won't make the actual game better, the same flaws that are in the game now that encourages deathballplay will still be there, but pulling off the deathball mechanicswise will only be harder.
I will keep repeating the same thing in these threads, SC2 the way it's been designed is encouraging deathball-play to a certain degree, and that won't change by making the game stupider so a deathball is harder to pull off.
What you want is something that encourages fighting on multiple fronts (which will also raise the need for multitasking), encourages faster expansions and in general, punishes big balls of units a-moving their way to victory. How could this be achieved?
For one thing, less resources (patches) pr. base is one way to go (imo), which will force players to expand faster and more often. Maybe maps should be tweaked a bit too so a player can't camp one spot with almost all their units and still have a perfectly acceptable response-time to harassment at any of their bases.
Also, AOE should be scary as hell in the game. Currently it really isn't as scary as it should be, but you can't just buff AOE in the current state of SC2.
There's multiple ways to go about the game to "fix" a deathballproblem instead of going back too stupid shit like BW. Lack of MBS and unlimited unitselection was NOT what made the game what it was/is.
You're making the assumption that clumping = objectively smarter AI. It doesn't. The effect of clumping was caused by a subjective number value that Blizzard put in the game. It is in no way "smarter" to have the AI auto-clump units.
MBS and unlimited selection are dead topics. Stop bringing them up. This is about unit boxes and clumping.
I wonder if people even realize that even though this pathing helps against banelings, it really SUCKS against bigger ling based armies since there is more surface area to attack the split marines. There's a reason why you split marines against banes but not against mass lings. This was true in BW as well. You wanted marines compact together against ling armies, but when lurker burrowed, you started splitting them. It's not like if this change went through, the marines would pre-split marines and their job is done, there's a lot more to it depending on your opponent's army composition.
On July 05 2012 01:04 Apolo wrote: Most people that are aggainst this seem to always say the same thing:
"It takes out the skill of splitting units in the middle of a battle"
Which to me is exactly the same as people were saying about automining, rally points, and so on. Watching a player fight aggainst the computer's mechanics is nothing to be amazed at. The units clump automatically independent of the player's skill. It's as cool to watch MKP split marines as it's cool to watch Bisu click on 10 gateways in 1s. Cool trick, but nothing more than just overcoming a handicap of the game.
Nevertheless, with this mod you can still watch splitting. It just is calculated and premeditated. A player can always clump his marines so the zerg makes banelings. But then he splits them in the last minute, to make the banes cost inefective. On the other hand, we can see much more tactical positions with the army. Players would know that they're not wasting actions by spreading units in a specific way like it happens now because they wouldn't disappear by a move command.
Also, this would be good for those that complain the defenders advantage is too small and should be bigger: we see many players making a beautiful concave when they're expecting an attack. Then the attacker baits, the defender clicks in and his units move. Boom. All his work wasted. The units got clumped again and he has to redo it all over if he wants to defend with a concave. At that time the attacker can now go knowing the defender is clumped and his advantage minimized.
For those that complain about balance as well. It's true. It would most likely unbalance the game in unexpected ways. But you can't theorize about it without even seeing it in action. Months ago Idra said Stephano's style would be figured out and he would go back to his place. If even him can be so wrong about a complete style of the race he plays, who are you to come here say this will break the game? And even if it indeed breaks the game, i believe it's in the best interest of Blizzard to see the long term future, and HoTS is a great opportunity to test it, at least in beta. As many people have said it looks and feels more natural and epic with the units spread out. Imagine the amount of tactis pre splitting could bring to pro play. As a spectator that would make me want to watch this game more.
And just as a final request: Mentioning the word BW in any context, question or statement, will only have Blizzard guys' brains flip up and say "Broodwar is a great game, and you can go play it if you want." There's no use to use that word, because apparently they don't want to have anything to do with it, it only seems to put out those premade replies and completely ignore the question.
Well said!! To add to the discussion for all those players talking about MKPs cool micro tricks, there are two more races and many such tricks that need to open up to make the game exciting. If the only good thing to look forward to in a game is that it needs terran and they need to do cool splitting tricks for excitement then the game will grow old fast. Right now the only matchup worth watching is TvZ and TvT. The rest of the matchups are simply ball vs ball and boring. Having only 1/3rd of the matchups watchable is not a good thing. In fact I already skip PvP and ZvZ in GSLs and soon will be skipping PvZ since that game is pretty much two base all ins, since protoss can't take a third, or 30 minute snoozefests where everything hinges on that clutch vortex.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Yeah, you want a game to be better... by being worse? Because removing stuff like MBS, unlimited unitselection is ultimately making the game stupider than what it is supposed to be. And it won't make the actual game better, the same flaws that are in the game now that encourages deathballplay will still be there, but pulling off the deathball mechanicswise will only be harder.
I will keep repeating the same thing in these threads, SC2 the way it's been designed is encouraging deathball-play to a certain degree, and that won't change by making the game stupider so a deathball is harder to pull off.
What you want is something that encourages fighting on multiple fronts (which will also raise the need for multitasking), encourages faster expansions and in general, punishes big balls of units a-moving their way to victory. How could this be achieved?
For one thing, less resources (patches) pr. base is one way to go (imo), which will force players to expand faster and more often. Maybe maps should be tweaked a bit too so a player can't camp one spot with almost all their units and still have a perfectly acceptable response-time to harassment at any of their bases.
Also, AOE should be scary as hell in the game. Currently it really isn't as scary as it should be, but you can't just buff AOE in the current state of SC2.
There's multiple ways to go about the game to "fix" a deathballproblem instead of going back too stupid shit like BW. Lack of MBS and unlimited unitselection was NOT what made the game what it was/is.
You're making the assumption that clumping = objectively smarter AI. It doesn't. The effect of clumping was caused by a subjective number value that Blizzard put in the game. It is in no way "smarter" to have the AI auto-clump units.
MBS and unlimited selection are dead topics. Stop bringing them up. This is about unit boxes and clumping.
But... but.. but.. It IS smarter AI.
You select a bunch of units and you tell them all to move to the same spot. Ofcourse they're gonna clump together as tight as possible, because they can't all fit in the spot you told them to move, so they'll just try and get as close as possible.
Maybe they should implement multiple move-commands? For instance, rightclick = move to spot, rightclick+drag in a direction, makes units move in formation and line up in the direction you dragged? (Company of Heroes anyone?)
Also, i'm not the one bringing up MBS and unlimited selection, I'm just talking back to those who do
I tried MMdaybreak, honestly it doesn't change things nearly as much as one would think watching the video. With all the ramps units tend to clump up quite a bit.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Yeah, you want a game to be better... by being worse? Because removing stuff like MBS, unlimited unitselection is ultimately making the game stupider than what it is supposed to be. And it won't make the actual game better, the same flaws that are in the game now that encourages deathballplay will still be there, but pulling off the deathball mechanicswise will only be harder.
I will keep repeating the same thing in these threads, SC2 the way it's been designed is encouraging deathball-play to a certain degree, and that won't change by making the game stupider so a deathball is harder to pull off.
What you want is something that encourages fighting on multiple fronts (which will also raise the need for multitasking), encourages faster expansions and in general, punishes big balls of units a-moving their way to victory. How could this be achieved?
For one thing, less resources (patches) pr. base is one way to go (imo), which will force players to expand faster and more often. Maybe maps should be tweaked a bit too so a player can't camp one spot with almost all their units and still have a perfectly acceptable response-time to harassment at any of their bases.
Also, AOE should be scary as hell in the game. Currently it really isn't as scary as it should be, but you can't just buff AOE in the current state of SC2.
There's multiple ways to go about the game to "fix" a deathballproblem instead of going back too stupid shit like BW. Lack of MBS and unlimited unitselection was NOT what made the game what it was/is.
You're making the assumption that clumping = objectively smarter AI. It doesn't. The effect of clumping was caused by a subjective number value that Blizzard put in the game. It is in no way "smarter" to have the AI auto-clump units.
MBS and unlimited selection are dead topics. Stop bringing them up. This is about unit boxes and clumping.
But... but.. but.. It IS smarter AI.
You select a bunch of units and you tell them all to move to the same spot. Ofcourse they're gonna clump together as tight as possible, because they can't all fit in the spot you told them to move, so they'll just try and get as close as possible.
Maybe they should implement multiple move-commands? For instance, rightclick = move to spot, rightclick+drag in a direction, makes units move in formation and line up in the direction you dragged? (Company of Heroes anyone?)
Also, i'm not the one bringing up MBS and unlimited selection, I'm just talking back to those who do
I take it you meant me responding to it but that however had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I just expressed my own opinions about it.
And then what if you have this "smarter" AI and you make the smarter AI give you the choice not clump up any longer, that would mean that you further improve on the AI making it even smarter. And we love smart AI's right?
On July 05 2012 02:05 Jetaap wrote: I tried MMdaybreak, honestly it doesn't change things nearly as much as one would think watching the video. With all the ramps units tend to clump up quite a bit.
Maybe collision size also needs to be tweaked. Currently all units are touching one another when standing. I have yet to see military squad standing like that unless they are protecting themselves from the cold .
People in this thread misunderstand why BW units didn't clump up. BW units could only move in 8 directions, while SC2 units can move in all directions. In BW, units would all travel, say, west, and then travel southwest when they needed to get to their destination. In SC2, units can travel 20 degrees to the south of west, and so go in a straight line. When all units do this, they all tend to converge on the destination. If you truly don't want your units clumping, move (on the minimap) to a destination behind your target, and units will clump up a lot less (just like magic boxing Mutalisks).
Maybe i'm totally wrong, but I feel that MM would actually not only make it more beautiful to watch, but also help the state of the micro-limited SC2 that we have right now.
Slow units (Like, Hydras for example) would actually become good in more situations, because they would be pre-split a bit and would not always get os by every AoE, because they are too slow to be manually splitted on the spot.
That would also help the ZvZ case : the threat of every single lings being killed by one or two banelings would not be that great and really good lings micro would still be possible.
Protoss could set a wall of zealot in front to tank lings, while microing stalkers and sentry behind it all in a split formation. If roaches, mutas or banes are able to form a breach in the zealot walls, then forcefield could be used to block it if positioned correctly. If the zealot wall get stomped, then Stalkers would have to blink micro to avoid being completly annihilated by lings (splitted stalkers suck hard against lings) or actually get clumped if they are enough. But, if they clump, they have to watch out for the fungals.
Infestor with a fungals a little bit buffed would actually become way more fun, too... they would probably be used for positional advantage, preventing you from clumping all your units together to own lings or preventing you from going into a tiny ramp or into a narrow passage with all your units at once, or else, fungals. They could also be used to send infested terrans into the ennemy formations, screwing it all : having a shit tons of infested terrans between your zealot wall and your stalkers would be bad. Hell, even having infested terran in your splitted up marine/tank formation would be harsh.
Neural parasite would be useful too, since it would be possible to sneak some infestors around a tank or two, or even against some immortals or achons that are a bit splitted up. Against an army splitted a bit too much, the infestor would not be insta-killed as soon as he NP.
On July 05 2012 02:09 Omegalisk wrote: People in this thread misunderstand why BW units didn't clump up. BW units could only move in 8 directions, while SC2 units can move in all directions. In BW, units would all travel, say, west, and then travel southwest when they needed to get to their destination. In SC2, units can travel 20 degrees to the south of west, and so go in a straight line. When all units do this, they all tend to converge on the destination. If you truly don't want your units clumping, move (on the minimap) to a destination behind your target, and units will clump up a lot less (just like magic boxing Mutalisks).
While it's true, That's not the only reason. In BW, if you moved your unit from point A to point B, they would all go AROUND point A, staying somewhat in the same formation that they were before. They would not always try to go EXACTLY on the destination that you clicked, clumping them up around it, like they do on SC2.
On July 04 2012 23:50 StackerTwo wrote: 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 definitely wouldn't mind a larger collision box for units either and I would even want to get rid of MBS and unlimited unit selection and replace it with a certain amount of max supply per unit group so that you could have more zerglings than 12 but still just 12 zealots for example.
Anyway, this would discourage deathballs if it came coupled with an AOE buff which it would have to. If there's a risk of your whole deathball being utterly destroyed by AOE, a lot more than it already is, you wouldn't want to risk clumping it up as much
There's this game called Brood War - You might like it.
I wish people would stop trying to ruin SC2 by changing it into BW. If you like BW, play BW, it already bloody exists. Or play one of the many BW custom maps that exist in SC2 already.
if it were to people like this, we'd be eating shit off the ground just like in the stone ages. Thank you I'll enjoy my molecular cooking because people actually give criticism, try to improve what we currently have and try out new things. Noone here wants bw carbon copy. We want sc2 to be better than it is. If you think sc2 is at it's full potential, you must have one narrow mind.
Yeah, you want a game to be better... by being worse? Because removing stuff like MBS, unlimited unitselection is ultimately making the game stupider than what it is supposed to be. And it won't make the actual game better, the same flaws that are in the game now that encourages deathballplay will still be there, but pulling off the deathball mechanicswise will only be harder.
I will keep repeating the same thing in these threads, SC2 the way it's been designed is encouraging deathball-play to a certain degree, and that won't change by making the game stupider so a deathball is harder to pull off.
What you want is something that encourages fighting on multiple fronts (which will also raise the need for multitasking), encourages faster expansions and in general, punishes big balls of units a-moving their way to victory. How could this be achieved?
For one thing, less resources (patches) pr. base is one way to go (imo), which will force players to expand faster and more often. Maybe maps should be tweaked a bit too so a player can't camp one spot with almost all their units and still have a perfectly acceptable response-time to harassment at any of their bases.
Also, AOE should be scary as hell in the game. Currently it really isn't as scary as it should be, but you can't just buff AOE in the current state of SC2.
There's multiple ways to go about the game to "fix" a deathballproblem instead of going back too stupid shit like BW. Lack of MBS and unlimited unitselection was NOT what made the game what it was/is.
You're making the assumption that clumping = objectively smarter AI. It doesn't. The effect of clumping was caused by a subjective number value that Blizzard put in the game. It is in no way "smarter" to have the AI auto-clump units.
MBS and unlimited selection are dead topics. Stop bringing them up. This is about unit boxes and clumping.
But... but.. but.. It IS smarter AI.
You select a bunch of units and you tell them all to move to the same spot. Ofcourse they're gonna clump together as tight as possible, because they can't all fit in the spot you told them to move, so they'll just try and get as close as possible.
Maybe they should implement multiple move-commands? For instance, rightclick = move to spot, rightclick+drag in a direction, makes units move in formation and line up in the direction you dragged? (Company of Heroes anyone?)
Also, i'm not the one bringing up MBS and unlimited selection, I'm just talking back to those who do
It's not smart ai at all. For all it's bugginess, BW had much more options for the players. Sure clumping was harder to do, but it could clump all the same if you wanted to. But if I wanted to move forward in formation, the much larger magic box allowed me that option. Or if I wanted to create a giant zealot train, I could right click forward on a perpindicular flank to the tank line and then a-move forward towards the tanks in a giant wave.
So you had 3 options (possibly more) on how to move BW units. Move them in a ball, move them in formation, move them in a line (and then attack). Current SC2 line is stupid because the units want to go to the same spot every single time. Even when you split the units, those individual members of the smaller groups want to go to the same spot every single time. There's no proper option of moving spread out, in formation. And that's what makes it stupid ai. Apparently ground magic box exists, but it's so small I have a hard time discerning it.
Basically SC2 ai is good at one thing. Getting all the units to a given spot, no matter how much jockying and pushing it requires. It does that job fantastically. But we used to have more options than that. And to turn old arguments on their head Not everyone want to "fight against the ai" to recreate those options. If people are afraid of disappearing micro- petition for moving shot for more units. THAT will create more micro. Not constantly spreading out your units to avoid the clump.
Interestingly, with bigger magic boxes and non "smart" casting, you could actually get simultameous, spread out storms. That it was possible to cover the screen with storms faster without "smart" casting. The difficulty was only selecting ht in you magic box and not other units.
Even that Happy replay of marine spread I imagine people would use to show that deathball is not a problem because the marines spread in midst of the attack. But I look at the opening of the battle and both armies are giant clump of units that are impossible to discern what the individual units are. Particularly because the healthbars are up. That is the primary importance of what I hope this mod or something like it (adjusted magic boxes) would fix. AoE can always be scaled up to be super awesome. (Bring back OP tanks.)
When I tried it, it felt incredibly natural to me, in heavy contrast to the immediate clumping of all my split units when I try to move them even a small distance. Clumping again also was no problem at all, one click and it's done. I also felt like it only added more strategical depth to the game, while it did hardly take any skill away and even added new opportunities for showing skill in micro. Of course it requires a buff in aoe, but that should be no problem at all to fix in the beta. And the armies seemed huge o.O
Seriously, we just need to keep that topic in the high one, to spread the word. Maybe if even some pros try it for a game or two and find it absolutly wonderful, blizzard will consider it... in time for like... LoV... lol
Someone have to do a map with this and OP Tank, OP Storm and OP Fungals, could probably even scale up the HSM speed and make the banelings splash a tiny little bit bigger.
I tried the DM unit tester and see what happen if we add ramp. The result is very good.
If you tell your units to go up a ramp, they will clump up again very naturally and smoothly just like the current sc2. They will all go up the ramp if click anywhere in the high ground. If you click on the ramp itself, the units will clump up at the ramp. It's very natural and predictable behavior.
I have the feeling that on the last pages more and more feedback is genuinely positive. Also from more and more people that tested it themselves. Thats quite a good sign I would say. There are always the nay-sayers on the internet and I'm not saying they dont argue at all but I think every point against mm they made in this thread was already countered with a pro-argument that made sense, at least to me.
On July 05 2012 04:08 Archerofaiur wrote: Could people who have had positive experiences post some of their games on youtube? The one in the OP still shows DeathBall vs DeathBall action.
Yeah, that video basically just shows how mm doesn't break the game if you play regularly, units can go up ramps and avoid obstacles ect. But yeah, more replays please. Especially on MMTaldarim since that's where you'll see big differences. If there are big problems with MM, MMTaldarim is where they'll be found.
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
well mutas and broodlord thing only happens to pretty poor players generally I'd say. Infestor problem is rather rare I find.
the only benefits for terran the i see is:
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
that's still 3 changes. I'd also say it will help against colossus and fungal too (in fact very strong vs fungal) Overall I'd say it's better for the terran in TvZ because sure while banelings may not take as much hits, they'd be so inefficient against good players that they'd be useless and a waste of money. Not the case for siege tanks.
Banelings are melee units and will clump up from attack-moving as well. Terran units are all ranged and can usually stay relatively spread out quite well and remain effective. Unit's like roaches banelings and zerglings will not only tend to clump naturally, but will need to clump a bit in order to do good damage.
I've played every RTS Blizzard has done since Warcraft Orc v Humans... been in tons of beta tests... and althought I'm an average player... I've watched this stuff forever.
This would be really good for the game. This is amazing to look at.
Please take a good look at this, Blizzard. Figuring how this would work with units passing each other and going up ramps might be tough to work out... but I really think it would be worth it.
(AOE damage would need to be buffed etc... it would change the game entirely.)
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds.
well mutas and broodlord thing only happens to pretty poor players generally I'd say. Infestor problem is rather rare I find.
less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings
that's still 3 changes. I'd also say it will help against colossus and fungal too (in fact very strong vs fungal) Overall I'd say it's better for the terran in TvZ because sure while banelings may not take as much hits, they'd be so inefficient against good players that they'd be useless and a waste of money. Not the case for siege tanks.
Banelings are melee units and will clump up from attack-moving as well. Terran units are all ranged and can usually stay relatively spread out quite well and remain effective. Unit's like roaches banelings and zerglings will not only tend to clump naturally, but will need to clump a bit in order to do good damage.
Banelings wouldn't be a waste of resources as they would recieve an AOE radius buff too and how you can say that banelings and zerglings need to clump to do good damage is stupid, how would clumping ever be beneficial for a melee unit? It reduces the damage output as there would be more units doing nothing. And if you spread zerglings with this and attack against spread marines they won't clump naturally as they will still spread too and go towards the closest marines which would be all along the "wall" of marines if you attack with your zerglings spread
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
I'd like to reiterate that the only thing this does is make it easier to spread out and keep units spread out. In the end, I don't think it would affect gameplay that much, at least not on the higher levels (where players spread out their units already). So for people who say it'd break the deathball up, I really don't think so. It may or may not be a better movement system, but the game with or without it is basically the same. Breaking up the deathball is about engagement efficiency, as I see it. This would make deathballs slightly stronger, as they'd engage in a slightly more efficient manner (which pros already make them engage in).
This is amazingly better to watch, and I can see it making for much better games overall I extremely support blizzard looking into implementing this, and really hope they take a serious look at the positives and negatives of this instead of just going with a blanket deny because it's a change from what the game is currently.
The earliest we'll see it will be legacy of the void, unless we can convince some tournies to do some expo games on these maps to showcase it.
edit: I feel the need to re-itterate, gameplay changes aside, this makes for a MUCH more enjoyable watching experience, and should be considered simply on that alone by the bigger tournies. While they won't just swap to it, some pressure from people like MLG/GSL/IEM would have blizzard look into it a lot more seriously.
I would like to personally pimp slap whoever decided sc2 units shouldn't move like this by default. Unfortunately, i'm not sure whether it is feasible to change it back at this late date.
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
I'd like to reiterate that the only thing this does is make it easier to spread out and keep units spread out. In the end, I don't think it would affect gameplay that much, at least not on the higher levels (where players spread out their units already). So for people who say it'd break the deathball up, I really don't think so. It may or may not be a better movement system, but the game with or without it is basically the same. Breaking up the deathball is about engagement efficiency, as I see it. This would make deathballs slightly stronger, as they'd engage in a slightly more efficient manner (which pros already make them engage in).
With an AOE radius buff it would break them up/discourage them and buffing AOE would be possible if it was possible to stay more spread and would punish not staying spread more.
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
I'd like to reiterate that the only thing this does is make it easier to spread out and keep units spread out. In the end, I don't think it would affect gameplay that much, at least not on the higher levels (where players spread out their units already). So for people who say it'd break the deathball up, I really don't think so. It may or may not be a better movement system, but the game with or without it is basically the same. Breaking up the deathball is about engagement efficiency, as I see it. This would make deathballs slightly stronger, as they'd engage in a slightly more efficient manner (which pros already make them engage in).
With an AOE radius buff it would break them up/discourage them and buffing AOE would be possible if it was possible to stay more spread and would punish not staying spread more.
The good thing about the example game was that it shows how the game is pretty much unchanged til you start manually splitting up your army. Splitting will still be something you need to do often I think.
It's good for the game in general, but it would require massive reworking of just about everything. Archon Toileting would be impossible, magic boxing would be automatic, Marines would be cost-efficient against Banelings, and so on. All of these, and more, would lead to huge imbalances in matchups.
I think this modification makes the game look bad and unpredictable. I would prefer to keep the current SC2 pathing as it is more spectator friendly for me. Good thing is that there is almost no chance blizzard implement this!
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind).
On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote: This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind).
Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match.
Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it.
On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote: This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind).
Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match.
Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it.
I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead.
And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly.
On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote: This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind).
Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match.
Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it.
I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead.
And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote: This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind).
Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match.
Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it.
I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead.
And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Hey I think we should focus our efforts on getting the ideas in the Dynamic Unit Movements thread afloat. It contains all these ideas and more.
This change is a little too subtle which means not enough is being done to truly influence battles/negate deathballs. I would also argue that since it is so suble it is primarily cosmetic (especially w/ map design).
Rather I should say that more needs to be done than what is suggested in this thread, and that any better ideas should be tested accordingly.
I have no idea what settings were used in pg1 of the dynamic movement thread but I wish we could implement those (korean article translation...). That looks great.
ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Opponent doing the same -> oh shit -> what do I do? -> react -> opponent counter your moves -> longer battles -> better for spectators -> more people watching -> esport growing
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Uh, Total Annihilation had no unit-selection limit and overall an incredibly powerful interface. And it came out a year before starcraft. The developers of starcraft, I'm convinced, were just incompetent. It's why the game was so great. Now we have SC2 and they've made smart pathing and everything sucks.
Anyways, back on topic, arguing for unit selection limits to be reinstated is stupid. Game mechanics should break up the deathball, not terrible interface design decisions. I don't see the unit selection limit making much of a difference. It would make players who are not as skilled have a more difficult time of moving their army around. That's it. I don't see it making any other difference.
Broodwar wasn't perfect. It was good, but not perfect. No automine and the unit selection limit are examples of BW flaws. They literally serve no design purpose, and are the results of design laziness. They should not be mistaken for design decisions. The only thing they do is force more tedious micro out of players, to overcome the design flaws of the game's interface.
Personally, I prefer a much more strategy-orientated approach to the game's design. You don't add any strategy or depth to the game by removing auto-mine or unlimited unit selection, so don't do it.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level.
Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master.
We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I wouldn't mind if max units selected could be turned on in the ui options, to soething like 1 page of units.
That way scrubs like me can train themselves to use more than 1 hotkey for army. I broke my side scrolling habit by turning off side scrolling entirely and only using drag scrolling and mini map. The other option I want is to turn off mouse clicks for buildings and probes, so all macro is done by hotkeys too.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level.
Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master.
We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I dunno about you but a lot of SC2 players are impressed by good creep spread. It is really the same thing, there are large differences even between top players on how they handle these mechanics. We are still impressed when Flash brings out army sizes that just shouldn't be possible in that time frame even after we thought iloveoov the cheater Terran had good macro which was 8 years ago. We are still impressed at how Bisu is still the only protoss that can keep his first probe scouting till lair tech, and how scourge are never able to hit his corsairs due to perfect use of chinese triangles.
We are still impressed by how Jangbi dismantled Flash by being able to macro off 30 gateways which he had to split between 2 mains because there wasn't enough space to fit all those buildings.
I am in no way advocating bringing back these mechanics as it will simply not happen. However I think there is a need to understand why these mechanics improved the game. Because these positive differences are currently missing in SC2, whether or not they were due to archaic mechanics.
I can make the same argument as yours as to how bad pathing in SC2 (the clumping) has produced a positive difference in the form of marine splitting vs banelings.
Ok, I haven't been following any of this at all but basically:
1) AoE can't be made strong because units clump too hard. If it is too strong, you can't "react" in time because your army melts instantly.
2) If units don't clump as hard, AoE can be made stronger. There is less of an excuse for the player to die to AoE, because we can all be like "omg why didn't u presplit".
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
a
In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level.
Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master.
We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I'm all for advocating strategies that require a large amount of mechanical skill. Think corsair/reaver in BW or iloveoov/fantasy build in TvP. You still have to think where your dropship goes, what places to mine up, where to harass, where to expand to in order to exploit the fact that your opponent has to play passively etc. but doing so requires a large amount of mechanical skill. Granted, not all strategies have to be played this way, some strategies can be played less mechanically, but the potential should always be there.
I don't get why people are arguing for this. Splitting units gives you an advantage over the opponent. The player who splits better will gain an advantage. Splitting units isn't easy and isn't supposed to be easy. Obviously the average low level player would love to not have to worry about constantly splitting their army, but why lower the skill-cap of the game?
On July 05 2012 17:21 TechNoTrance wrote: I don't get why people are arguing for this. Splitting units gives you an advantage over the opponent. The player who splits better will gain an advantage. Splitting units isn't easy and isn't supposed to be easy. Obviously the average low level player would love to not have to worry about constantly splitting their army, but why lower the skill-cap of the game?
I have a trick that accomplish the same as the "pre-split moving" but it´s harder to do then with this mod and takes more skill to be effective. I´ll give you a tip it has to do with the old "blink in formation" trick.
And just no. I don´t like this idea you try to make sc3. We are now in sc2 and nothing of this will change.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
they were not design choıices. someof them never came to mind of developers, or simply problemetic because of tech issues.
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem..
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level.
Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master.
We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I dunno about you but a lot of SC2 players are impressed by good creep spread. It is really the same thing, there are large differences even between top players on how they handle these mechanics. We are still impressed when Flash brings out army sizes that just shouldn't be possible in that time frame even after we thought iloveoov the cheater Terran had good macro which was 8 years ago. We are still impressed at how Bisu is still the only protoss that can keep his first probe scouting till lair tech, and how scourge are never able to hit his corsairs due to perfect use of chinese triangles.
We are still impressed by how Jangbi dismantled Flash by being able to macro off 30 gateways which he had to split between 2 mains because there wasn't enough space to fit all those buildings.
I am in no way advocating bringing back these mechanics as it will simply not happen. However I think there is a need to understand why these mechanics improved the game. Because these positive differences are currently missing in SC2, whether or not they were due to archaic mechanics.
I can make the same argument as yours as to how bad pathing in SC2 (the clumping) has produced a positive difference in the form of marine splitting vs banelings.
You can't make that argument. Bad pathing is pretty much completely unrelated.
Anyways, you don't seem to get my point. I hate it when menial, tedious processes which can and should be automated are not solely for the purpose of adding more micro. Micro should be focused on using your units effectively, which is much more impressive (for spectators, anyways) than being able to click on a bunch of gateways or tell your workers to mine.
Most of your examples are, in fact, micro that I agree with. How can scourge-evasion be automated? How can probe scouting be automated? These are things which should be left up to micro. I'm not arguing against micro. I'm arguing against unnecessary micro.
One example of good macro-focused micro is the chronoboost, I think. It opens up new options for protoss builds and strategies, and isn't overly complicated to use. We need to stop clogging up the basics with more micro and add more meaningful micro instead.
On July 05 2012 17:14 ClydeFrogSC2 wrote: Ive been playing this in customs with friends all day, and holy shite it feels weird to split your units......AND THEY LISTEN!
Mad ups to the creator(s) of this mod. I really hope the community shoves this in blizzards face and makes this a part of HOtS
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote: I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Total Annihilation ? This game shitted on any technology restriction back in the day. So no, it was decision from blizzard to cap selections.
If i remember correctly C&C from 1995 had "no" selection cap and there was no food count (obviously there were some caps but very high ones). Starcraft was just made in a WC2 convention, maybe it was engine restriction but Starcraft was not even close to being hardware demanding game back in the day. It was even pointed out that UI was already slightly archaic when they game come out.
It does look much better, but it has to potential to blow balance up. I don't think Blizzard would ever implement this but there's nothing bad about bringing it to their attention.
On July 05 2012 18:41 NeonFox wrote: It does look much better, but it has to potential to blow balance up. I don't think Blizzard would ever implement this but there's nothing bad about bringing it to their attention.
Isn't it a map specific setting and not a hack?
Then map makers could just modify their maps ...
Technically you could hold a tournament for some random Sc2 custom game, so as long as Blizzard allows this to be modified in the editor they can't stop it being used in tournaments.
Personally I don't think it will have game breaking consequences. It is retarded how much micro goes to splitting groups of units everytime they arrive at a new location. This makes the army movement more consistent and allows the player to focus on more important things possibly making the game being played on a higher level . This goes eally well with how they designed the rest of the UI with infinite control groups and auto-mining etc.
On July 05 2012 14:02 Kharnage wrote: I wouldn't mind if max units selected could be turned on in the ui options, to soething like 1 page of units.
That way scrubs like me can train themselves to use more than 1 hotkey for army. I broke my side scrolling habit by turning off side scrolling entirely and only using drag scrolling and mini map. The other option I want is to turn off mouse clicks for buildings and probes, so all macro is done by hotkeys too.
On July 05 2012 17:50 Nachtwind wrote: I have a trick that accomplish the same as the "pre-split moving" but it´s harder to do then with this mod and takes more skill to be effective. I´ll give you a tip it has to do with the old "blink in formation" trick.
And just no. I don´t like this idea you try to make sc3. We are now in sc2 and nothing of this will change.
1. Explain how you keep your units from clumping 2. you dont like the idea because he's trying to make sc3? what?
go play the mod before you make those silly assumptions.
Ok christ we get it units clump up when you move them together and you don't like it. That video seriously pissed me off. "I don't actually watch sc2 anymore", well I'm glad we have you to tell us what would be better for the game then.
On July 05 2012 18:41 NeonFox wrote: It does look much better, but it has to potential to blow balance up. I don't think Blizzard would ever implement this but there's nothing bad about bringing it to their attention.
Isn't it a map specific setting and not a hack?
Then map makers could just modify their maps ...
Technically you could hold a tournament for some random Sc2 custom game, so as long as Blizzard allows this to be modified in the editor they can't stop it being used in tournaments.
Personally I don't think it will have game breaking consequences. It is retarded how much micro goes to splitting groups of units everytime they arrive at a new location. This makes the army movement more consistent and allows the player to focus on more important things possibly making the game being played on a higher level . This goes eally well with how they designed the rest of the UI with infinite control groups and auto-mining etc.
I thought everyone was complaining about how easy sc2 is (it's not). Why would you want to make it easier?
Not only would it make it easier, it would also change the balance significantly. Anything that has aoe would have to be buffed, and then the question is by how much. Who is going to test this for you? Because it isn't going to be pros, unless they get paid for it. If it's not pros balance testing it, it'll be balance tested incorrectly and if it gets implemented it'll set back this game by a year or maybe even a couple.
off-topic: People "hate" the weirdest things. That or people just misuse the word hate. Seriously, it's pretty extreme.
On July 05 2012 19:48 Clarity_nl wrote: Ok christ we get it units clump up when you move them together and you don't like it. That video seriously pissed me off. "I don't actually watch sc2 anymore", well I'm glad we have you to tell us what would be better for the game then.
On July 05 2012 18:41 NeonFox wrote: It does look much better, but it has to potential to blow balance up. I don't think Blizzard would ever implement this but there's nothing bad about bringing it to their attention.
Isn't it a map specific setting and not a hack?
Then map makers could just modify their maps ...
Technically you could hold a tournament for some random Sc2 custom game, so as long as Blizzard allows this to be modified in the editor they can't stop it being used in tournaments.
Personally I don't think it will have game breaking consequences. It is retarded how much micro goes to splitting groups of units everytime they arrive at a new location. This makes the army movement more consistent and allows the player to focus on more important things possibly making the game being played on a higher level . This goes eally well with how they designed the rest of the UI with infinite control groups and auto-mining etc.
I thought everyone was complaining about how easy sc2 is (it's not). Why would you want to make it easier?
Not only would it make it easier, it would also change the balance significantly. Anything that has aoe would have to be buffed, and then the question is by how much. Who is going to test this for you? Because it isn't going to be pros, unless they get paid for it. If it's not pros balance testing it, it'll be balance tested incorrectly and if it gets implemented it'll set back this game by a year or maybe even a couple.
This will be probably (might have been more) my 5th time saying this but, please just go try the mod. it doesnt make the game easier at all, it makes it make sense. It's also a little better to watch (spectate)
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
No, that IS exactly how it works: the units keep their formation with this change. This mod actually proves that we don't need this change, because most lower skill players are NOT pre-splitting their units because they don't have the multitasking to, while I can guarantee pros and better players will most definitely pre-split their army.
Mods like these are warranted given peoples disgust for deathballs, but you have to understand that the future of SC2 in Esports will not be deathballs. Sooner or later you'll see people with 1-3 control groups of army, and people actually using this built-in 'mod' by using the trick Blizzard already has in the game:
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
People have to do similar with Mutas, it's a viable tactic, nobody uses it; instead we make a mod to do it for us... we don't need it.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
No, that IS exactly how it works: the units keep their formation with this change. This mod actually proves that we don't need this change, because most lower skill players are NOT pre-splitting their units because they don't have the multitasking to, while I can guarantee pros and better players will most definitely pre-split their army.
Mods like these are warranted given peoples disgust for deathballs, but you have to understand that the future of SC2 in Esports will not be deathballs. Sooner or later you'll see people with 1-3 control groups of army, and people actually using this built-in 'mod' by using the trick Blizzard already has in the game:
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
People have to do similar with Mutas, it's a viable tactic, nobody uses it; instead we make a mod to do it for us... we don't need it.
you can presplit your units with the current state of the game all you want. the moment you move them, they will clump.
They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I just want to ask, did you try the mod? Units in BW were affected/clumped/congo lined by the terrain. The same happens with this mod. I told you that it is basically cosmetic atm. That's because as soon as you move units are clumped by terrain features into a big ball. Also units auto-clump on attack move.
I've changed my opinion that it's much more an issue of collision. This doesn't do that much to the game. You still split your units etc. This just looks better for movement.
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I read it but didnt respond it simply because there is no way that an army would hold formation across the current set of maps we have due to ramps, chokes, etc... and you still have to micro in battles simply because when you attack move, units will bump into each other while trying to get to their destination.
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I just want to ask, did you try the mod? Units in BW were affected/clumped/congo lined by the terrain. The same happens with this mod. I told you that it is basically cosmetic atm. That's because as soon as you move units are clumped by terrain features into a big ball. Also units auto-clump on attack move.
I've changed my opinion that it's much more an issue of collision. This doesn't do that much to the game. You still split your units etc. This just looks better for movement.
Yes I have, and I liked it, the game movement and battles were better, but it felt unnecessary to me.
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I read it but didnt respond it simply because there is no way that an army would hold formation across the current set of maps we have due to ramps, chokes, etc... and you still have to micro in battles simply because when you attack move, units will bump into each other while trying to get to their destination.
Hey, lol, dual teaming. What are your thoughts on unit collision and the whole wading through units like butter issue? I think that taking a look at collision is the better route, like in the Dynamic Movement thread that was necroed. Since you seem to like this idea?
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
No, that IS exactly how it works: the units keep their formation with this change. This mod actually proves that we don't need this change, because most lower skill players are NOT pre-splitting their units because they don't have the multitasking to, while I can guarantee pros and better players will most definitely pre-split their army.
Mods like these are warranted given peoples disgust for deathballs, but you have to understand that the future of SC2 in Esports will not be deathballs. Sooner or later you'll see people with 1-3 control groups of army, and people actually using this built-in 'mod' by using the trick Blizzard already has in the game:
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
People have to do similar with Mutas, it's a viable tactic, nobody uses it; instead we make a mod to do it for us... we don't need it.
you can presplit your units with the current state of the game all you want. the moment you move them, they will clump.
That is not particular true. If you click to move, far away, they will stay in formation.
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I just want to ask, did you try the mod? Units in BW were affected/clumped/congo lined by the terrain. The same happens with this mod. I told you that it is basically cosmetic atm. That's because as soon as you move units are clumped by terrain features into a big ball. Also units auto-clump on attack move.
I've changed my opinion that it's much more an issue of collision. This doesn't do that much to the game. You still split your units etc. This just looks better for movement.
Yes I have, and I liked it, the game movement and battles were better, but it felt unnecessary to me.
I agree that it feels unnescesary to me, particularly b/c the scope of what it accomplishes isn't enough to justify increasing AOE etc.
As I said before more focus on collision. Something that is easy to implement. Lol I'm not really that good with the map editor - wish I could figure out the setting that was used in the Dynamic Movement thread.
It's quite sad that so many people dismiss the idea because they think it makes stuff easier without giving it a try first. If you had tried it first you would not talk such BS. This change makes it a little bit easier to keep the general shape of your army. If you do not have to spent so much APM on just that it opens up so much more micro of individual units. You can move and reposition individual units, you can move casters in your army and far more. Even at the highest level of play individual units behave far from optimal in fights. Even the best players right and in the future will not be able to command every single unit to the max in big fights. This won't haven with the current or with the modified movement. There is always room to improve. No one will ever be able to micro like Automatron 2000. There will always be ways to improve, even if things that should be simple are simple. You should not be fighting the UI you should be fighting your opponent.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
No, that IS exactly how it works: the units keep their formation with this change. This mod actually proves that we don't need this change, because most lower skill players are NOT pre-splitting their units because they don't have the multitasking to, while I can guarantee pros and better players will most definitely pre-split their army.
Mods like these are warranted given peoples disgust for deathballs, but you have to understand that the future of SC2 in Esports will not be deathballs. Sooner or later you'll see people with 1-3 control groups of army, and people actually using this built-in 'mod' by using the trick Blizzard already has in the game:
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
People have to do similar with Mutas, it's a viable tactic, nobody uses it; instead we make a mod to do it for us... we don't need it.
you can presplit your units with the current state of the game all you want. the moment you move them, they will clump.
That is not particular true. If you click to move, far away, they will stay in formation.
Please, this works for air units, but not for ground units on current maps. For ground units is highly situational. On top of that different armys behave different. Late game zerg armys for example kind of autospread and arrange them self in a quite useful manner because they have different sizes and speeds while others like marine tank clue together. This is a problem especially at the lower levels.
I don't know if this already has been posted but I'm going to say it anyways. The pathfinding with unit clumping up is intentional. It forces more micro out of the player, marine splitting, spreading out units vs fungals, emp's, storms and all that just increases the skill cieling of SC2 which is a good thing. It also makes it a better spectator sport, I mean everyone can agree that you nerd-jizzed seeing some good terran splitting against banelings. Add this into the game and that splitting won't be as special anymore.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
No, that IS exactly how it works: the units keep their formation with this change. This mod actually proves that we don't need this change, because most lower skill players are NOT pre-splitting their units because they don't have the multitasking to, while I can guarantee pros and better players will most definitely pre-split their army.
Mods like these are warranted given peoples disgust for deathballs, but you have to understand that the future of SC2 in Esports will not be deathballs. Sooner or later you'll see people with 1-3 control groups of army, and people actually using this built-in 'mod' by using the trick Blizzard already has in the game:
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
People have to do similar with Mutas, it's a viable tactic, nobody uses it; instead we make a mod to do it for us... we don't need it.
you can presplit your units with the current state of the game all you want. the moment you move them, they will clump.
That is not particular true. If you click to move, far away, they will stay in formation.
Please, this works for air units, but not for ground units on current maps. For ground units is highly situational. On top of that different armys behave different. Late game zerg armys for example kind of autospread and arrange them self in a quite useful manner because they have different sizes and speeds while others like marine tank clue together. This is a problem especially at the lower levels.
Please, i played the mod and i could only see minor different moving with a T army. The mod itself acts like if there is no path summarisation where without the mod all unit paths end to the point you clicked. You can avoid that if you click far far away. If there was a narrow space (you mentioned maps/situational and i think you meaned that) the mod acts like it would in original the units will clump up.
On July 05 2012 20:44 Olsson wrote: I don't know if this already has been posted but I'm going to say it anyways.
Yeah, lol, it has been posted. Many times. Like, by every person who hasn't tried the mod and doesn't realize that this is not that significant in what it does (compared to what you think it does)...at all.
I think the focus should be on collision lol. This is largely cosmetic.
On July 05 2012 20:44 Olsson wrote: I don't know if this already has been posted but I'm going to say it anyways. The pathfinding with unit clumping up is intentional. It forces more micro out of the player, marine splitting, spreading out units vs fungals, emp's, storms and all that just increases the skill cieling of SC2 which is a good thing. It also makes it a better spectator sport, I mean everyone can agree that you nerd-jizzed seeing some good terran splitting against banelings. Add this into the game and that splitting won't be as special anymore.
You are wrong tho. Tell me other cool micro tricks that made you jizz your pants that dont include marines. Vortex? Storms? Blink? Baneling drops? Yeah right.
I do agree that this by itself wont fix the deathball issue. Even with this I dont see why protoss or zerg would go for a more spread out army rather than dps packed ball except the ocassional fungal or emp dodge. Id rather make unit hitboxes larger along with dynamic unit movement fix ( when units dont push eachother), plus this formation retaining. Making a deathball should be a lot more difficult to do.
On July 05 2012 20:25 submarine wrote: It's quite sad that so many people dismiss the idea because they think it makes stuff easier without giving it a try first. If you had tried it first you would not talk such BS. This change makes it a little bit easier to keep the general shape of your army. If you do not have to spent so much APM on just that it opens up so much more micro of individual units. You can move and reposition individual units, you can move casters in your army and far more. Even at the highest level of play individual units behave far from optimal in fights. Even the best players right and in the future will not be able to command every single unit to the max in big fights. This won't haven with the current or with the modified movement. There is always room to improve. No one will ever be able to micro like Automatron 2000. There will always be ways to improve, even if things that should be simple are simple. You should not be fighting the UI you should be fighting your opponent.
Well said. Right now Splitting in fight is the only thing you can do and it mostly applies to marine baneling micro. Thats a very small part of the game. It's cool though, I won't argue against that. But. The micro ends there. I have never seen a player marine split like a pro AND target banelings with tanks AND send single marines to attack infestors or manage a drop elsewhere or pull back wounded marines or actively prevent tanks from shooting at own tanks and marines or rearrange their medivacs or spread the split away marines even more against fungal or stim little troops midfight or do all the other stuff people could come up with that increase effectiveness.
I truly believe this wont take away anything from the game but will enrich it. While testing this I felt that micro was a lot more fluid and free to any shape or form rather than restrictive in comparision to before.
I am not that interested in aesthetics of the game and i dont care about BW honestly. It's nice that BW was such a good game but it is not needed here as a point in the argument because all the reasons presented for this cause are independent of broodwar. BW could have never existed and the reasoning would still be the same. I care about this change solely because of improvement of gameplay and the possibilites a player has and the choices he can make aswell as the usability of his dexterity. What I really liked after testing is that you can manipulate the army to your advantage ONLY if you are good enough. If you dont invest apm quite constantly in your army it will be clumped or become clumped after a short time do to map artifacts or attacking enemies. You wont really notice any difference at all actually. Not until you actually invest apm into the army formation.
Now if you would, as was suggested, buff AOE even to a slight degree the game would be more micro intensive than before because the additional APM for your army formation would not be optional but rather demanding on a high level of play.
Further more it looks like defenders advantage due to chokes, even bigger ones, would increase but not incredibly much aswell because armies still can get up ramps fast if they want - just clumped. So you could use a smaller amount of siege units or other AOE units to defend that ramp and use the rest of your army elsewhere while the deathball has harder work at your ramp. This weakens the deathballs abiliy to bulldose its way through everything.
SCII is a complex game of course and noone can predict the outcome of the MM change but we can present arguments that show the likeliness of improving gameplay and I guess thats what people want right? The better aesthetics are a bonus of course but even the bigger armysizes enhance the pros ability to predict the strength of a force which gives them more crucial information so it is not solely aesthetic aswell.
On July 05 2012 20:44 Olsson wrote: I don't know if this already has been posted but I'm going to say it anyways. The pathfinding with unit clumping up is intentional. It forces more micro out of the player, marine splitting, spreading out units vs fungals, emp's, storms and all that just increases the skill cieling of SC2 which is a good thing. It also makes it a better spectator sport, I mean everyone can agree that you nerd-jizzed seeing some good terran splitting against banelings. Add this into the game and that splitting won't be as special anymore.
Can people please stop being so close-minded and also read the thread too to see all the suggestions. The OP could probably do well with an update with all the advantages and changes that could possibly come from it.
You say that spreading out vs AOE units increases the skill ceiling and that's true and guess what? With this a buff to AOE would be possibly which in turn would make splitting more important and with a radius buff it also wouldn't reduce the amount of splitting you would have to do. And it would also add the possiblity for all of these changes
Quote from weerwolf
"yes, 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."
It is a shame, id love this. You could then start thinking about using unit formations which is something i have though about before being massively advantages but near impossible to implent due to clumping nature of the move ment commands.
I like this, it reminds me of spreading in broodwar before you attack a tank like or something. In SC2 it doesn't matter how your army is shaped before you engage they all clump up anyway when you go to attack.
It looks more natural too when the army is moving across flat ground.
Also we're not saying this is the perfect change, it obviously isn't. We're trying to get blizzard to realize that there's something wrong with the deathballing of units. It's not fun to spectate, it's not fun to play against. I want to be able to retreat certain parts of my army without suddenly losing 50 percent of my firepower and getting decimated in half a second. Sc2 can become a lot better, it needs more micro. For the love of god, we need stuff like jaedong's muta's, if you don't like microing, you're a sad boring bastard and all your stories end with "and then I got back to my base and macro'd some more."
On July 05 2012 20:06 v3chr0 wrote: They will start to clump slowly, yes - depending on how far and where you clicked on the minimap, which is fine. Did you not read the second thing I quoted? You shouldn't be able to move across the whole map in the same EXACT formation without no further micro, not even BW was like that.
I read it but didnt respond it simply because there is no way that an army would hold formation across the current set of maps we have due to ramps, chokes, etc... and you still have to micro in battles simply because when you attack move, units will bump into each other while trying to get to their destination.
If ground units don't stay in formation with mini-map attack move because of chokes then they also won't stay in formation with this new mod. Chokes are chokes.
The point is, in the open field you can already do what this mod does with a little bit of skill required.
On July 06 2012 05:46 wcr.4fun wrote: Also we're not saying this is the perfect change, it obviously isn't. We're trying to get blizzard to realize that there's something wrong with the deathballing of units. It's not fun to spectate, it's not fun to play against. I want to be able to retreat certain parts of my army without suddenly losing 50 percent of my firepower and getting decimated in half a second. Sc2 can become a lot better, it needs more micro. For the love of god, we need stuff like jaedong's muta's, if you don't like microing, you're a sad boring bastard and all your stories end with "and then I got back to my base and macro'd some more."
It's not a perfect change, in fact it's not much of a change at all. We need much more serious changes to the movement system. As for breaking the deathball up, this change won't do it on its own.
The issue isn't how units clump or don't stay in formation or what have you. The issue is how easily they move around eachother. In BW the movement was much sharper and units couldn't push eachother so a condensed group of units would naturally ungroup because they couldn't get around eachother.
The way this breaks up the deathball and slows down engagements is that units take longer to get into attack range, and more units added to a deathball don't really add any firepower since there's too many units for all of them to get into position. These excess units are better used elsewhere, which makes breaking the deathball up, from a player's perspective, a good move, since there are excess units that can be used in other places. Etc.
The modified movement change isn't enough to create this effect. It may help a little bit, but it's not enough. We need more modified movement.
This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
Thats not exactly true as the clumping effect is usually so strong that it clumps too fast. Even the best human micro champ has its limits. The clumping is strong enough to heavily reduce you ability to move around quickly. There might be a good compromise though, like somehow lowering the clumping effect. No one claimed this was the best solution, rather its the only one or one of a few. But as folks here showed with some arguments this change would be for the better overall.
On July 06 2012 06:45 Dahlian wrote: Thats not exactly true as the clumping effect is usually so strong that it clumps too fast. Even the best human micro champ has its limits. The clumping is strong enough to heavily reduce you ability to move around quickly. There might be a good compromise though, like somehow lowering the clumping effect. No one claimed this was the best solution, rather its the only one or one of a few. But as folks here showed with some arguments this change would be for the better overall.
Edit: was meant as an answer to BuddhaMonk
Have you tried the mini map attack move? If you're clicking across the map the units will stay in formation and won't clump. Are you sure you're aware of what I'm referring to?
This isn't the perfect solution to everything, true. What this does is very specific. It simply makes it so the game doesn't FORCE your army to clump whenever you move. Spectator-wise it looks a lot more natural and less weird. It does nothing more than that. It won't change the way games are played too drastically, except maybe in very open fields. This is a specific solution to a specific issue in SC2. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's the opposite, this should be what we should all ask Blizz to do(assuming you're for it).
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
On July 06 2012 06:45 Dahlian wrote: Thats not exactly true as the clumping effect is usually so strong that it clumps too fast. Even the best human micro champ has its limits. The clumping is strong enough to heavily reduce you ability to move around quickly. There might be a good compromise though, like somehow lowering the clumping effect. No one claimed this was the best solution, rather its the only one or one of a few. But as folks here showed with some arguments this change would be for the better overall.
Edit: was meant as an answer to BuddhaMonk
Have you tried the mini map attack move? If you're clicking across the map the units will stay in formation and won't clump. Are you sure you're aware of what I'm referring to?
So if it works with the minimap, why cant we have that for the normal screen too?
Wow I kept hearing people talk about this, but was expecting someone to have just made odd pathfinding ala Red Alert 3 (which I always find odd to look at).
Instead this does look really smooth. I'd really be interested to hear an interview with a Blizz person that asks this question, similar to the "restart dropped game from replay" mod which garnered some interview questions to Dustin Browder (or David Kim...I forget who now...).
Mmm I like the current army movement and clumping. Even if it's not realistic, I find it easier to control my army as well as enemy HT/infestor wouldn't be clumped for EMPs
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
Players are often praised on their abilities to spread out their army in a snap, having the game do that for them would detract from some of the most impressive plays we've ever seen.
(I'm not talking about marine splitting, but the sudden response to an unexpected engagement where a player re-configures his army for an ideal concave.)
On July 06 2012 05:46 wcr.4fun wrote: Also we're not saying this is the perfect change, it obviously isn't. We're trying to get blizzard to realize that there's something wrong with the deathballing of units. It's not fun to spectate, it's not fun to play against. I want to be able to retreat certain parts of my army without suddenly losing 50 percent of my firepower and getting decimated in half a second. Sc2 can become a lot better, it needs more micro. For the love of god, we need stuff like jaedong's muta's, if you don't like microing, you're a sad boring bastard and all your stories end with "and then I got back to my base and macro'd some more."
It's not a perfect change, in fact it's not much of a change at all. We need much more serious changes to the movement system. As for breaking the deathball up, this change won't do it on its own.
The issue isn't how units clump or don't stay in formation or what have you. The issue is how easily they move around eachother. In BW the movement was much sharper and units couldn't push eachother so a condensed group of units would naturally ungroup because they couldn't get around eachother.
The way this breaks up the deathball and slows down engagements is that units take longer to get into attack range, and more units added to a deathball don't really add any firepower since there's too many units for all of them to get into position. These excess units are better used elsewhere, which makes breaking the deathball up, from a player's perspective, a good move, since there are excess units that can be used in other places. Etc.
The modified movement change isn't enough to create this effect. It may help a little bit, but it's not enough. We need more modified movement. On July 04 2012 15:06 Rkynick wrote: + Show Spoiler +
this. most definitely this (especially the spoiler, which is a few posts up on this page if it doesnt come out on the quote TT). I read somewhere earlier in this thread a suggestion calling for increased unit collision, and that seems to me like one of the better ideas people have come up with. To the OP, i dont think this change would do too much for gameplay but make the deathball FEEL more spread out, just slightly. But you also have to consider the possibility of this taking away micro aspects of the game.
That being said, it could actually produce micro situations that are better than what they are now, but it needs much more play testing to know for sure...
And it would be nice if Blizz put in seperate ladders next to the standard one where they would impliment these types of changes and people could easily map these types of adjustments out...
EDIT: btw, it would probably make sense to post this on the battlenet forums so that its directly in Blizzards face (if it gets enough support, that is)
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
Anyone posting here cares about sc2 not a hypothetical future awesome game somebody may or may not ever make in their free time. Blizzard owns all map IP anyways and the makers would be at the mercy of blizzard to do stuff like add matchmaking and rankings or to promote the game or let them run big tournamets. (problem: this game will need to create it's own big money tournaments and pro scene to replace sc2 for a lot of people in this thread as a spectator sport and make them happy. That will be difficult especially if it has to compete for the same spot as sc2 or LoL at MLG or in Korea.)
it would take years to grow a game to be as good and as popular as sc2 with a very talented and dedicated mapper with a lot of time in charge it might never happen. I agree it would be nice if somebody did make a really great game but I don't think this thread is preventing great games from being made in the editor or elsewhere.
I dont really see the point of your suggestion you might as well just say anyone who dares to suggest improvements to sc2 with their opinion should leave the sc community forever and find something on steam to play instead.
Blizzard obviously doesn't want to make big changes to the game after the release because constantly and dramitcally upsetting the pro or regular player's metagame is not good and they need to save things to sell hots. But blizzard seemed more receptive to community feedback and making bigger changes before and in the beta for WoL so I think it is worth a shot for people to express their opinions on the game design of sc2 right now with hots beta starting soon and see what happens. it's more likely then having a fan design an esport bigger than sc2 in their free time anyways.
Besides why do you want to deny everyone the chance to make Dustin scream about how great their idea was?
TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.
DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.
I think everyone on teamliquid should get their fair shot to make Dustin yell that for the hots design. David Kim said he read the FRB post at least so we know they are still looking and are not completely ignored.
On July 03 2012 19:06 papaz wrote: 1. I actually like the death ball
2. Like it or not. Changing it will give Blizzard a balance headache of huge proportions. Suddenly the AoE is kinda worthless. MKP doesn't need to even marinesplit vs banelings. His units won't clump up -> problem solved.
This is one of those things that won't change in SC2.
Because of this aoe will need to be buffed to BW standards 100 damage storm with larger size
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
Probably true, but if this ( or some other concept that changes the fundamentals of sc2 ) gets further developed and tested - it might evolve into something so good that large tournament organizers/KeSPA might start to want it - at that point blizzard might give in.
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
On July 06 2012 13:38 Dox wrote: Players are often praised on their abilities to spread out their army in a snap, having the game do that for them would detract from some of the most impressive plays we've ever seen.
(I'm not talking about marine splitting, but the sudden response to an unexpected engagement where a player re-configures his army for an ideal concave.)
1) You still have to split your army 2) A split army is still suspectable to flanks 3) You still have to do it quickly if the army is attacking you or you need to attack the army/you are hitting a timing.
IIRC, starcraft 2 still makes your army walk in a line of some sort when you are moving long distances, so that part won't change. It's not like we added in automated unit movement. You still have to pay attention to your units.
Yes, I don't think this actually changes that much either. All it really does it to give you some control of how your group moves - e.g. if you put your marines in a line they will quickly concave around any force they meet head on, but then they become highly vulnerable at the flanks. Most splash damage happens during engagements, and during engagements you'll find the ranged guys naturally forming a concave with everyone else jockeying for position behind them. This means that there'll still always be a load of bunched up guys to get hit by the arc cannon or stormu.
On July 06 2012 22:29 Mr Cochese wrote: Yes, I don't think this actually changes that much either. All it really does it to give you some control of how your group moves - e.g. if you put your marines in a line they will quickly concave around any force they meet head on, but then they become highly vulnerable at the flanks. Most splash damage happens during engagements, and during engagements you'll find the ranged guys naturally forming a concave with everyone else jockeying for position behind them. This means that there'll still always be a load of bunched up guys to get hit by the arc cannon or stormu.
The people that keep saying this won't change much are missing the point that has been repeatedly made earlier in the thread. It is a given that if you put this change into the game you would then buff AoE damage. Why? Because this change would make AoE very weak in its current state, but if you buff AoE, it will then seriously discourage deathball play because it will destroy deathballs instantly. You currently can't buff AoE because it would be too powerful due to natural clumping of units, so these two must go hand-in-hand.
Welp, finally made it through this thread. Still shaking my head.
On July 06 2012 22:11 b3n3tt3 wrote: if this was implemented then terran would have to suffer more from nerfs.
why? current game balance revolves around server wide winrates. pretty BS huh, but it's the truth.
This mod is very good but it will create a new game. LotV?
Thus the theme of this thread continues: responses from people who've actually played with this change are overwhelmingly positive, and are meanwhile drowned out by people who haven't, though they insist on posting gloom and doom nonsense. Frequently the latter are even commenting on how the game is too perfect to change this much, occasionally. Two Blizzard expansions coming. Just pointing that out.
If you say this would make Terran imba (again), — or whatever else it is you think this "breaks", — then prove it. At least the guy with the notion that split marines and tanks would suddenly become unstoppable made an attempt. It was [apparently] through a really lopsided, poorly handled, and isolated engagement in a unit tester, but still. Host some customs, put up some replays. Don't just say "If this happened teh world would endz0r". You've got every opportunity to try it yourself. I can't even fathom how people wrote out long negative responses without even trying it. Maybe I'm just remembering wrong, they all kindof run together.
To the OP: played around with this in the unit tester, seems fine. Not like a, "This is how you solve all of the problems with SC2" thing. Found it subtle, and intuitive. As far as I can tell, if you don't actively split/clump your units, you won't notice a difference at all. AT ALL. There's not a "be optimal" button for groups of units. The things that you split against now? You still split against those. Clump? Yep, stayed the same. It makes it so that the units don't instantly clump up when you move them after splitting. I know that that should not need to be repeated, but every few posts there's someone else saying how it makes the game ezmode and makes banelings useless or some crap. Without actually testing anything, of course.
And here I was thinking that the SC2 guys didn't want to fight against the interface.
But then, somehow, MBS gets brought up, or there's a "If you want BW go play BW" comment, or suddenly there's a random (/misguided) link to starbow or something. It's all really...silly.
I can believe that SC2's clumping as-is was by design. But, there sure have been a lot of changes to AoEs to make up for everything being in a ball all the time, thanks to it being ridiculously hard to move an army in any other formation.
Also,
On July 05 2012 13:19 Rkynick wrote: Broodwar wasn't perfect. It was good, but not perfect. No automine and the unit selection limit are examples of BW flaws. They literally serve no design purpose, and are the results of design laziness. They should not be mistaken for design decisions. The only thing they do is force more tedious micro out of players, to overcome the design flaws of the game's interface.
Personally, I prefer a much more strategy-orientated approach to the game's design. You don't add any strategy or depth to the game by removing auto-mine or unlimited unit selection, so don't do it.
You had some good points and some bad points through the thread, Rkynick, but this was a bad one. Think about macro. Although you think, "I need to keep building workers constantly", you still have to manually do that. Rather than "start building <type of unit> until I stop you", and rather than spending resources as units entered production (which makes more sense, as far as making sense is concerned), it's by design that you're making them one at a time every X number of seconds.
I can't say for sure whether or not the lack of automine and 12 unit selection were by design or not. I think you should consider the same stance, tbh, rather than being dismissive just because of what you would have preferred. Because, if strategy is all that matters, it really shouldn't be an issue that you can't spare the attention to go back to your base and check up on unit production during that battle, right? Yes, it's certainly a part of your strategy to decide to keep producing units. It's also usually a part of everyone's strategy to keep having money.
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
I hope the StarCraft 2 guys rapes Flash
banter.
This is possibly the best post in the entire thread. With the upcoming release of 1.5 Arcade people should check out the SC2 BW MOD and StarBow
Nah. The changes people most want to see require changes to the game engine, and that's just not gonna happen.
For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
For some reason, tweaking unit movement variables simply isn't able to reproduce the same inertia-defying physics that made the smooth moving shot possible in Broodwar. SCII:s new engine is just too realistic in a sense, and we get these gliding, clumsy and inert units as a result.
Same story with unit pathing and the deathball (even though I personally don't think this is the most pressing issue). It's not realistic to expect Blizzard to make changes to their game engine.
Every change they've implemented thus far, has been one that you can achieve through the map editor.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How did you do it?
Seriously man? You can't even read the OP? It's in the very last line. Under the bold letters "What I did"
On topic: I don't like this. That's just my opinion. Age of empires had some pre-defined spread options, and it's just so noobish. If you tell a group of units to go to one point, they should all find their own best path, naturally this means they will clump, and collosus will go off by themselves because they're like children and want to walk along the cliff.
Sure you may need APM to initially get your army spread, but as the current game stands, you need APM to spread it, and keep it spread, and rearrange the spread. I just don't like this.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How did you do it?
Seriously man? You can't even read the OP? It's in the very last line. Under the bold letters "What I did"
On topic: I don't like this. That's just my opinion. Age of empires had some pre-defined spread options, and it's just so noobish. If you tell a group of units to go to one point, they should all find their own best path, naturally this means they will clump, and collosus will go off by themselves because they're like children and want to walk along the cliff.
Sure you may need APM to initially get your army spread, but as the current game stands, you need APM to spread it, and keep it spread, and rearrange the spread. I just don't like this.
Kind sir, we appreciate your zealous enthusiasm, but he wasn't talking about MM! He was responding to Superouman's post about how he was able to change worker mining time, which was a response to LaluSh!
One specific change at a time is the way to do it. Telling Blizz and the community that you want to not force units to clump, want them to not go around things that fast, increase their collision size, buff AoE significantly, less minerals in bases, all to change SC2 at the same time won't bring anything. If Blizzard changes anything it's going to be slowly one thing at a time and it should start with the things that wouldn't change the game too drastically, but would still be a change for the better. I think this modification is just that. On top of that, this modification gives the user more freedom, instead of taking freedom away. Increasing unit collision size makes it so you won't clump because you can't. The game won't let you. Then making units go around things slower is making the AI worse, something Blizz is likely to never do. I'm not saying i'm completely against those changes, but limiting user control and making AI act less efficiently is something Blizzard really isn't too crazy about. MM doesn't limit you or make the AI worse. It just gives the player more control and freedom. Spectating seems to be much better, and it doesn't radically change the way the game is played. That sounds like something Blizzard could end up doing if we push for it. Again, i'm not necessarily against other changes, in fact I'm definitely on the side of some of them, but you shouldn't ignore a smaller change because it's not drastic enough. It's part of the big picture of making SC2 better. Focus on the smaller changes first.
I really think the community is deluding itself in a sense about its power to influence Blizzard. True, the community helps get things nerfed and exposes exploits, but this new trend of whining at blizzard and showing their designers how much we'd love this or that feature, pressuring them into changing their game in some democratic way... it's not working. Anybody else notice that Starcraft 2 is over 2 years old and the community still hasn't succeeded in doing anything but motivate balance tweaks and encourage tournaments?
I think the best bet, considering the circumstances, is to simply use the Starcraft 2 map editor to make NEW GAMES. I don't think they should be named "Starcraft Enhanced" or anything like that, but especially with the arcade coming out people could create a modding/design community and also a player community for these mods, which, using the SC2 engine, could exist almost as games in their own rights. If enough of a player base could be built, a player could just log on and see who's playing his favorite SC2-Engine games, and get a game together... much like footmen wars or DOTA in warcraft 3.
Of course, this post will get swallowed up by the hundreds of other posts and never stand out in any way. TL needs to make an exclusive forum of important community contributors (I don't mean myself, but I do mean guys like Barrin and pzea and ironmansc) where smart writing doesn't get drowned out by 14 pages of
I hope the StarCraft 2 guys rapes Flash
banter.
This is possibly the best post in the entire thread. With the upcoming release of 1.5 Arcade people should check out the SC2 BW MOD and StarBow
Nah. The changes people most want to see require changes to the game engine, and that's just not gonna happen.
For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
For some reason, tweaking unit movement variables simply isn't able to reproduce the same inertia-defying physics that made the smooth moving shot possible in Broodwar. SCII:s new engine is just too realistic in a sense, and we get these gliding, clumsy and inert units as a result.
Same story with unit pathing and the deathball (even though I personally don't think this is the most pressing issue). It's not realistic to expect Blizzard to make changes to their game engine.
Every change they've implemented thus far, has been one that you can achieve through the map editor.
Which I why the community should through support behind mods that use the map editor to change the game engine.For instance the SC2 BW Mod allows you to turn on/off unlimited unit selection.
Welp, finally made it through this thread. Still shaking my head.
On July 06 2012 22:11 b3n3tt3 wrote: if this was implemented then terran would have to suffer more from nerfs.
why? current game balance revolves around server wide winrates. pretty BS huh, but it's the truth.
This mod is very good but it will create a new game. LotV?
Thus the theme of this thread continues: responses from people who've actually played with this change are overwhelmingly positive, and are meanwhile drowned out by people who haven't, though they insist on posting gloom and doom nonsense. Frequently the latter are even commenting on how the game is too perfect to change this much, occasionally. Two Blizzard expansions coming. Just pointing that out.
If you say this would make Terran imba (again), — or whatever else it is you think this "breaks", — then prove it. At least the guy with the notion that split marines and tanks would suddenly become unstoppable made an attempt. It was [apparently] through a really lopsided, poorly handled, and isolated engagement in a unit tester, but still. Host some customs, put up some replays. Don't just say "If this happened teh world would endz0r". You've got every opportunity to try it yourself. I can't even fathom how people wrote out long negative responses without even trying it. Maybe I'm just remembering wrong, they all kindof run together.
To the OP: played around with this in the unit tester, seems fine. Not like a, "This is how you solve all of the problems with SC2" thing. Found it subtle, and intuitive. As far as I can tell, if you don't actively split/clump your units, you won't notice a difference at all. AT ALL. There's not a "be optimal" button for groups of units. The things that you split against now? You still split against those. Clump? Yep, stayed the same. It makes it so that the units don't instantly clump up when you move them after splitting. I know that that should not need to be repeated, but every few posts there's someone else saying how it makes the game ezmode and makes banelings useless or some crap. Without actually testing anything, of course.
And here I was thinking that the SC2 guys didn't want to fight against the interface.
But then, somehow, MBS gets brought up, or there's a "If you want BW go play BW" comment, or suddenly there's a random (/misguided) link to starbow or something. It's all really...silly. + Show Spoiler +
I can believe that SC2's clumping as-is was by design. But, there sure have been a lot of changes to AoEs to make up for everything being in a ball all the time, thanks to it being ridiculously hard to move an army in any other formation.
Also,
On July 05 2012 13:19 Rkynick wrote: Broodwar wasn't perfect. It was good, but not perfect. No automine and the unit selection limit are examples of BW flaws. They literally serve no design purpose, and are the results of design laziness. They should not be mistaken for design decisions. The only thing they do is force more tedious micro out of players, to overcome the design flaws of the game's interface.
Personally, I prefer a much more strategy-orientated approach to the game's design. You don't add any strategy or depth to the game by removing auto-mine or unlimited unit selection, so don't do it.
You had some good points and some bad points through the thread, Rkynick, but this was a bad one. Think about macro. Although you think, "I need to keep building workers constantly", you still have to manually do that. Rather than "start building <type of unit> until I stop you", and rather than spending resources as units entered production (which makes more sense, as far as making sense is concerned), it's by design that you're making them one at a time every X number of seconds.
I can't say for sure whether or not the lack of automine and 12 unit selection were by design or not. I think you should consider the same stance, tbh, rather than being dismissive just because of what you would have preferred. Because, if strategy is all that matters, it really shouldn't be an issue that you can't spare the attention to go back to your base and check up on unit production during that battle, right? Yes, it's certainly a part of your strategy to decide to keep producing units. It's also usually a part of everyone's strategy to keep having money.
What is misguided about supporting the custom map scene as a vehicle for creating the game the community wants to play? One only need to look at DOTA.
One thing I see over and over again are people saying how the limitations made BW "better" than it otherwise would have been without those limitations.
Nobody knows how BW would have turned out if those limitations were not in place. All we can conclusively say is that those technical limitations had an impact on the gameplay, but since we don't have access to the alternate universes where those limitations were removed we have no idea how BW would have played out over its 12 year history without them. It's entirely plausible that BW would have been just as exciting and dynamic and everything else people love about the game without those limitations.
Additionally SC2 is a new and different game, you can't say that since SC2 doesn't have those limitations that's why the gameplay is "worse". Even if those technical limitations were in place in SC2, it would still be a different game with its own problems.
Yeah, it's so hard to split our units... Let's just make them always move in magic box. The unit movement doesn't feel wrong... When you select all your units and move command them to a single point on the map, of course they will clump up. This is how it should work. It's up to the player, if he wants his army not clumped, to split them manualy. Nice effort, but I don't think that the game will benefit from this... That is my personal opinion of course
On July 07 2012 03:29 Pr0wler wrote: Yeah, it's so hard to split our units... Let's just make them always move in magic box. The unit movement doesn't feel wrong... When you select all your units and move command them to a single point on the map, of course they will clump up. This is how it should work. It's up to the player, if he wants his army not clumped, to split them manualy. Nice effort, but I don't think that the game will benefit from this... That is my personal opinion of course
Do you really want to have them all move to that one point? Wouldnt it be more natural to keep a formation while moving ... kinda like a bunch of cops searching a forest for a piece of evidence? Armies work with FORMATIONS and the only one available in SC2 is a stupid ball for movement. That might not feel wrong to you, but many others are annoyed by it.
Oh and this isnt about being too lazy to split your army (which has its disadvantages as well), but rather about staying in a formation while marching.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How did you do it?
Seriously man? You can't even read the OP? It's in the very last line. Under the bold letters "What I did"
On topic: I don't like this. That's just my opinion. Age of empires had some pre-defined spread options, and it's just so noobish. If you tell a group of units to go to one point, they should all find their own best path, naturally this means they will clump, and collosus will go off by themselves because they're like children and want to walk along the cliff.
Sure you may need APM to initially get your army spread, but as the current game stands, you need APM to spread it, and keep it spread, and rearrange the spread. I just don't like this.
What about magic box in BW? Did you think that was noobish as well? I agree there shouldn't be formation buttons and perhaps this isn't quite the right fix. But do you think having the option to keep your units spread (via method like a proper magic box) is noobish as well?
Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote: ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this. So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right? with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
And that's the way it should be! You also forgot to mention, that if you can do that tactic so does your opponent. He too, will put his infestors in the back, roach at the front and lings at the flanks. Both get a more efficient tactic, more close to a real life combat between armies, which we can understand, and much more beautiful to watch than just a bunch of mixed clumped units. Why are they all disorganized? - asks a friend new to the game. Because the players have to constantly separate them because the AI doesn't allow them to stay in formation, and it's such a hassle one might as well not bother and let em all clump and disorganized.
In real life will you send the snipers at the front and the tanks right behind them? Of course not. I feel these is one of those things that would bring SC2 more mainstream because it would bring a lot of tactics real armies do.
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
Erm. Isn't this exactly how it works in SC2 at the moment?
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
Erm. Isn't this exactly how it works in SC2 at the moment?
no, sc2 units will always ball at target click point
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
Erm. Isn't this exactly how it works in SC2 at the moment?
no, sc2 units will always ball at target click point
No. They don't.
Every unit has a magic box. If you click inside the box, they move in, and outside then they move alongside one another (so long as they're inside the magic box size). Try it out. It's like 10 marines wide, 3 for seige tanks, 5 for medivacs (I'm not sure those are all correct numbers, it's been a while since I did this, but there is a magic box).
If they're further apart than (or there's more units than fit in) the magic box, they'll move inwards while going towards the target point (which is why minimap clicking keeps units more spread out - the target point is just further away).
If you can change the time workers take to mine you can change the income curve and the income per base in potentially positive ways, it's a small adjustment with huge implications. I mean, there are a lot of variables that can be tweaked and influence clumping behavior for instance, think of collision size or the tweak proposed in this set of maps. Blizzard saying they "can't make the path finding worse" is a bit of a copout, since just in the margins there are so many small things to change that can have a positive impact yet don't require overhauling the path finding algorithms.
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
Erm. Isn't this exactly how it works in SC2 at the moment?
no, sc2 units will always ball at target click point
No. They don't.
Every unit has a magic box. If you click inside the box, they move in, and outside then they move alongside one another (so long as they're inside the magic box size). Try it out. It's like 10 marines wide, 3 for seige tanks, 5 for medivacs (I'm not sure those are all correct numbers, it's been a while since I did this, but there is a magic box).
If they're further apart than (or there's more units than fit in) the magic box, they'll move inwards while going towards the target point (which is why minimap clicking keeps units more spread out - the target point is just further away).
I think the issue is it's much too small. 10marines wide is pretty narrow considering how close units pack together. I was trying the difference between dragoon magic box and stalker magic box (as well as testing zealots and ht) and it must be much smaller than I thought because I couldn't get the same easy spread as in BW.
longtime lurker here: i realy liked this change, and i dont know if it has already been said in earlier 30 pages, but if annyone who reads this knows how to get this to the attention of day9 (or other pupular sc2 webshows) we could bring it to the attention of most of the stream watching public, and in so doing get to test it with many more players (think funday mondays only with this played in serious mode)
personally would love to have this in sc2, but only way that happens is if its tested by many people and gain popularity first
also, make sure annyone who does this explains the package deal of this + an aoe adjustment, so it does not appear to be some crackpot idea to break the game
On July 07 2012 09:07 Singrana wrote: longtime lurker here: i realy liked this change, and i dont know if it has already been said in earlier 30 pages, but if annyone who reads this knows how to get this to the attention of day9 (or other pupular sc2 webshows) we could bring it to the attention of most of the stream watching public, and in so doing get to test it with many more players (think funday mondays only with this played in serious mode)
personally would love to have this in sc2, but only way that happens is if its tested by many people and gain popularity first
also, make sure annyone who does this explains the package deal of this + an aoe adjustment, so it does not appear to be some crackpot idea to break the game
Or better yet, the next person that interviews the Blizz guys (Browder, Kim, Sagaty), ask them what they think about the proposed change. If they insist on keeping the WOL movement, then ask them why.
this would be a good thing, but an interview most of the time does not press an issue, only ask on the surface briefly before moving to a new question. if this map could be a flavor of the month thing for many players (pro players also); then we would have good evidence of this mechanic working or not, while at the same time informing as many people as possible of the existence of this proposal and creating discussions ( <-- this would also happen with an interwiev)
if somehow we can get most people to at least try this, and have enough pro matches to get proof it does not screw the game, then i think there would be a chance of convincing blizz if players want it after trying, but if people do not try it then the only way it could be implemented is if Bowder himself came up with this idea and decided to enforce it on everyone (dont think this wil happen)
On July 07 2012 09:34 Singrana wrote: if this map could be a flavor of the month thing for many players (pro players also); then we would have good evidence of this mechanic working or not, while at the same time informing as many people as possible of the existence of this proposal and creating discussions
Big publicity for this discussion would be increased from exposure, which could be achieved through two methods IMO:
1. Day[9] has enough analytical power to look at the differences between the basic SC2 movement AI and this modified movement mod. If he could be made to "have a look" for a week or two it could be enough exposure.
2. Pro players would never "waste" their time for something which does not benefit them. The only way to achieve this would be to have a small tournament which isnt connected to a series, the SHOUTcraft tournament comes to mind there. Smaller tournaments with "B-pros" could work as well.
The movement modification alone will not be good enough for this kind of "public presentation" though, an adjustment for AoE effects has to be included as well as an enducement to actually use it.
On July 07 2012 09:34 Singrana wrote: if this map could be a flavor of the month thing for many players (pro players also); then we would have good evidence of this mechanic working or not, while at the same time informing as many people as possible of the existence of this proposal and creating discussions
Big publicity for this discussion would be increased from exposure, which could be achieved through two methods IMO:
1. Day[9] has enough analytical power to look at the differences between the basic SC2 movement AI and this modified movement mod. If he could be made to "have a look" for a week or two it could be enough exposure.
2. Pro players would never "waste" their time for something which does not benefit them. The only way to achieve this would be to have a small tournament which isnt connected to a series, the SHOUTcraft tournament comes to mind there. Smaller tournaments with "B-pros" could work as well.
The movement modification alone will not be good enough for this kind of "public presentation" though, an adjustment for AoE effects has to be included as well as an enducement to actually use it.
I'd say that this can totally keep the BW players happy.
Maverk's BW Mod + the Hybridic Graphic Settings + Modified Dynamics Movement = Pretty much BW on modern graphics.
For that reason, I support this cause. Its the best of both worlds really.
Wow this is actually fantastic. We won't ever see it in a retail product however ;;
Never say never man.
If the community rallies together for this idea, our passions grows because we are emotionally connected for one single cause. This could bridge the two StarCraft communities as one. Hence, growing ESPORT!
On July 07 2012 14:32 erazerr wrote: wouldn't this remove a lot of the splitting micro required in the game ? I.E Marines vs banelings would be a hilarious joke?
Yep!
Unless you make the splash radius and/or damage ridiculous on most of the splash units, which would in turn make them hilariously powerful against worker lines and the like. Zergling battles in particular would be much more random as well with the movement alone-- zergling/baneling wars would just get silly.
On July 07 2012 14:32 erazerr wrote: wouldn't this remove a lot of the splitting micro required in the game ? I.E Marines vs banelings would be a hilarious joke?
Yep!
Unless you make the splash radius and/or damage ridiculous on most of the splash units, which would in turn make them hilariously powerful against worker lines and the like. Zergling battles in particular would be much more random as well with the movement alone-- zergling/baneling wars would just get silly.
edit: corrected grammar
I don't know how people can be so sure about that. Did you test the map honestly ?
I did and and i'm certain of only one thing, it need some test. Not even sure we should balance splash damage.
For example, marines would still be more efficient DPS wise when clumped ( more marines will shoot, increasing their efficiency ), but if fungal/baneling come in play then the player would have the possibility to split them before any engagement and ( possibly ) move while staying in formation. Let's say the Terran player use this new option. Then the zerg player could also split is ling/bane/infestor before and run in the enemies lines when this one stand in an open space, make the tank shoot less effective ( marines would also take down less units before those one could attack in melee, they'll may get surrounded easily ).
All that is theorycrafting. We can't be sure of anything, it may actually be useless and change nothing as it could need a significant buff to splash or maybe just wider maps. In any case it's looks way better, armys looks bigger and more badass and it's allow more tactical possibilities.
On July 07 2012 14:32 erazerr wrote: wouldn't this remove a lot of the splitting micro required in the game ? I.E Marines vs banelings would be a hilarious joke?
Yep!
Unless you make the splash radius and/or damage ridiculous on most of the splash units, which would in turn make them hilariously powerful against worker lines and the like. Zergling battles in particular would be much more random as well with the movement alone-- zergling/baneling wars would just get silly.
edit: corrected grammar
When i read posts like these two, this is what comes to my mind:
On July 05 2012 01:04 Apolo wrote: Most people that are aggainst this seem to always say the same thing:
"It takes out the skill of splitting units in the middle of a battle"
Which to me is exactly the same as people were saying about automining, rally points, and so on. Watching a player fight aggainst the computer's mechanics is nothing to be amazed at. The units clump automatically independent of the player's skill. It's as cool to watch MKP split marines as it's cool to watch Bisu click on 10 gateways in 1s. Cool trick, but nothing more than just overcoming a handicap of the game.
Nevertheless, with this mod you can still watch splitting. It just is calculated and premeditated. A player can always clump his marines so the zerg makes banelings. But then he splits them in the last minute, to make the banes cost inefective. On the other hand, we can see much more tactical positions with the army. Players would know that they're not wasting actions by spreading units in a specific way like it happens now because they wouldn't disappear by a move command.
Also, this would be good for those that complain the defenders advantage is too small and should be bigger: we see many players making a beautiful concave when they're expecting an attack. Then the attacker baits, the defender clicks in and his units move. Boom. All his work wasted. The units got clumped again and he has to redo it all over if he wants to defend with a concave. At that time the attacker can now go knowing the defender is clumped and his advantage minimized.
For those that complain about balance as well. It's true. It would most likely unbalance the game in unexpected ways. But you can't theorize about it without even seeing it in action. Months ago Idra said Stephano's style would be figured out and he would go back to his place. If even him can be so wrong about a complete style of the race he plays, who are you to come here say this will break the game? And even if it indeed breaks the game, i believe it's in the best interest of Blizzard to see the long term future, and HoTS is a great opportunity to test it, at least in beta. As many people have said it looks and feels more natural and epic with the units spread out. Imagine the amount of tactis pre splitting could bring to pro play. As a spectator that would make me want to watch this game more.
And just as a final request: Mentioning the word BW in any context, question or statement, will only have Blizzard guys' brains flip up and say "Broodwar is a great game, and you can go play it if you want." There's no use to use that word, because apparently they don't want to have anything to do with it, it only seems to put out those premade replies and completely ignore the question.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How? Some guy pointed to the OP. But as far as I can tell the OP only talks about tweaking unit formation settings, not about mining.
I've searched around a lot for this and haven't found it.
On July 07 2012 14:32 erazerr wrote: wouldn't this remove a lot of the splitting micro required in the game ? I.E Marines vs banelings would be a hilarious joke?
Yep!
Unless you make the splash radius and/or damage ridiculous on most of the splash units, which would in turn make them hilariously powerful against worker lines and the like. Zergling battles in particular would be much more random as well with the movement alone-- zergling/baneling wars would just get silly.
edit: corrected grammar
AoE damage is going to be "ridiculous" (=OP) only if there is no way for a player to counteract it. Thus this is the second leg for making such a change viable.
As it stands a terran mech player HAS TO focus all of his tanks on one area of the map. They are weak in small numbers and couldnt really scare off a determined attack from Zerglings due to the speed and rate of fire. Each tank can get off about one shot and then they are swarmed by Zerglings ... and then the tanks start to kill each other with friendly fire. This whole "you HAVE TO put all your eggs into one basket" thing is bad, because it makes them weak to run-bys and will result in a meching player losing instantly after losing his main army simply because he cant reproduce the important tanks before losing the bases. This is one of the reasons why mech is rather weak atm.
----
One thing I would have wished for - especially for siege tanks - is the ability to "attack the ground". With it you could basically keep a choke point under constant fire and prevent the usual "overkill concentrated fire" we have atm. I would rather have 20 Zerglings on 5 hp pass a choke point to be slaughtered by Marines than have them be killed by several tank shots only to let the next bunch of 20 Zerglings pass through totally unharmed. Zerg have too many "automated and free" units already to trigger those important tank shots and there should be a countermeasure as well. It should make all thos idiots happy who whine that dynamic unit movement would "kill all micro" by adding a new option for it. Since siege tank fire does hurt your own troops it should be totally fine from a balance standpoint as well.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How? Some guy pointed to the OP. But as far as I can tell the OP only talks about tweaking unit formation settings, not about mining.
I've searched around a lot for this and haven't found it.
mineral patches have a behavior on them, edit this behavior.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
I know people have been praising this, but to me it looks hideous.
Look at the stuttering. Look at the units getting stuck on one another. Look at how everything gets caught on the slightest edges. This doesn't solve the problem of death-balls, it just makes it a pain in the arse to move your army around.
Maybe this is how things were in BW, but I'd quit SC2 instantly if the AI became like this.
You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
I know people have been praising this, but to me it looks hideous.
Look at the stuttering. Look at the units getting stuck on one another. Look at how everything gets caught on the slightest edges. This doesn't solve the problem of death-balls, it just makes it a pain in the arse to move your army around.
Maybe this is how things were in BW, but I'd quit SC2 instantly if the AI became like this.
You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
False the AI is not getting down graded and also it's only changing the formation of the units instead of putting them up in one big blob formation . I don't see any problem moving your armies using this modified movement test for sc2 for example just take a look at the presenter mouse click to a certain destination it seems really effortless and there is no additional need to micro your units over a "ramp". Sounds like you hate something that is going to improve the game visually for spectators.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
I know people have been praising this, but to me it looks hideous.
Look at the stuttering. Look at the units getting stuck on one another. Look at how everything gets caught on the slightest edges. This doesn't solve the problem of death-balls, it just makes it a pain in the arse to move your army around.
Maybe this is how things were in BW, but I'd quit SC2 instantly if the AI became like this.
You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
False the AI is not getting down graded and also it's only changing the formation of the units instead of putting them up in one big blob formation . I don't see any problem moving your armies using this modified movement test for sc2 for example just take a look at the presenter mouse click to a certain destination it seems really effortless and there is no additional need to micro your units over a "ramp". Sounds like you hate something that is going to improve the game visually for spectators.
Did you watch the video?
I'm not talking about the OPs movement thing here, but the sc2bw one.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
I know people have been praising this, but to me it looks hideous.
Look at the stuttering. Look at the units getting stuck on one another. Look at how everything gets caught on the slightest edges. This doesn't solve the problem of death-balls, it just makes it a pain in the arse to move your army around.
Maybe this is how things were in BW, but I'd quit SC2 instantly if the AI became like this.
You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
False the AI is not getting down graded and also it's only changing the formation of the units instead of putting them up in one big blob formation . I don't see any problem moving your armies using this modified movement test for sc2 for example just take a look at the presenter mouse click to a certain destination it seems really effortless and there is no additional need to micro your units over a "ramp". Sounds like you hate something that is going to improve the game visually for spectators.
Did you watch the video?
I'm not talking about the OPs movement thing here, but the sc2bw one.
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
the original video with a ramp would look no different than default. units would still lather up in oil and slide through it no problem.
my attempt at it is a little different. if a unit is moving forward and it encounters another unit infront of it. it will stop and wait for a quarter of a second and then it will try again. normally after it tries again it will try to take a new path. mine doesn't do this yet. they simply wait and wait and wait. so it's not perfect. yet.
the idea is simple, you are not going to get a nice concave if you just a-move. your army will not be at it's most efficient when moving around (seems about right dont it?)
i like it alot better. positioning is much more important as is awareness.
i did a test with my mod, i put 7 siege tanks in siege mode and a-moved 200 marines into them. every marine died and not a scratch on any of the tanks. i did the same thing but spread them out and did my best to make a concave. i killed all the tanks fairly easily. i think this is a nice dynamic and creates a large disparity between a low and high skilled player. a high skilled player might be able to break that tank line with superior play. while a low skilled player would get demolished.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
The SC2BW one is more the inclusion of unit collisions and less the dynamic movement -.-
Units in the MM maps clump together through corners, a lighter version of the unit collisions might help some. The unit collisions did its job to de-clump things through the corners, but it really slowed everything down and made getting around it really bad looking. Although that was just because he A moved, could have been better with more micro, which is the overall goal of all this.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
the original video with a ramp would look no different than default. units would still lather up in oil and slide through it no problem.
my attempt at it is a little different. if a unit is moving forward and it encounters another unit infront of it. it will stop and wait for a quarter of a second and then it will try again. normally after it tries again it will try to take a new path. mine doesn't do this yet. they simply wait and wait and wait. so it's not perfect. yet.
the idea is simple, you are not going to get a nice concave if you just a-move. your army will not be at it's most efficient when moving around (seems about right dont it?)
i like it alot better. positioning is much more important as is awareness.
i did a test with my mod, i put 7 siege tanks in siege mode and a-moved 200 marines into them. every marine died and not a scratch on any of the tanks. i did the same thing but spread them out and did my best to make a concave. i killed all the tanks fairly easily. i think this is a nice dynamic and creates a large disparity between a low and high skilled player. a high skilled player might be able to break that tank line with superior play. while a low skilled player would get demolished.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
Hmmm from inspection from the SC2:BW one, it seems that there is not enough spacing between the units? Thus they bump into each other alot more, and thus it looks sortof ugly.
When you tell marines to go from one place to another one that is really far away, they will line up in a single file, and they will have a certain amount of space between each one. It's easy to describe but I don't actually know what causes them to have said spacing.
EDIT: On closer inspection, BW units actually bump into each other alot, perhaps it's not as noticeable because they are still in the "run" animation when they collide...
EDIT2: or maybe it's because there were like 50 marines in the video. I've been watching games where just a small handful of marines were being moved around.
EDIT3: Or maybe it has to do w/ the difference in radius and the model size. Clump marines look less clumped even when manually clumped in BW than they do in SC2.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
I disagree with you on that point and have already stated from the post previously that there is no sign that players will have difficulty moving across the map with his modification also there is no additional micro in doing so . If you click the unit to go above the ramp the units will accomplish that objective there is no need to micro it as if goliaths are walking up the ramp in broodwar.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
I disagree with you on that point and have already stated from the post previously that there is no sign that players will have difficulty moving across the map with his modification also there is no additional micro in doing so . If you click the unit to go above the ramp the units will accomplish that objective there is no need to micro it as if goliaths are walking up the ramp in broodwar.
yea... it's not like im making you pull off some sick micro to get units up a ramp or else half wont make it. it's more. you might move your army from one side of the map to the other and it will become vulnerable and be out of position. it wont be ready for a fight in this state.
Wow Maverick that movement video is beautiful. Especially the zergling movement, a lot more swarmy imo. If you could fix that tiny glitch when units run into a ramp so it doesnt look so clipped, its really weird like that.
Also, does editor allow you to increase hitboxes of units? When they clump theyre still too tight together for my taste. Id make it only a tad bigger.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
the original video with a ramp would look no different than default. units would still lather up in oil and slide through it no problem.
my attempt at it is a little different. if a unit is moving forward and it encounters another unit infront of it. it will stop and wait for a quarter of a second and then it will try again. normally after it tries again it will try to take a new path. mine doesn't do this yet. they simply wait and wait and wait. so it's not perfect. yet.
the idea is simple, you are not going to get a nice concave if you just a-move. your army will not be at it's most efficient when moving around (seems about right dont it?)
i like it alot better. positioning is much more important as is awareness.
i did a test with my mod, i put 7 siege tanks in siege mode and a-moved 200 marines into them. every marine died and not a scratch on any of the tanks. i did the same thing but spread them out and did my best to make a concave. i killed all the tanks fairly easily. i think this is a nice dynamic and creates a large disparity between a low and high skilled player. a high skilled player might be able to break that tank line with superior play. while a low skilled player would get demolished.
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
This is exactly how it works in in Sc2. The magic boxes in sc2 seem to be a bit smaller. All the MM mod does is that it makes the magic box very big.
Think this would do a better job of getting rid of the deathball?
Looks the same nothing change . What's your problem ?
"Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"
Watch the video. Then note the points I made about it in my post.
I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
the original video with a ramp would look no different than default. units would still lather up in oil and slide through it no problem.
my attempt at it is a little different. if a unit is moving forward and it encounters another unit infront of it. it will stop and wait for a quarter of a second and then it will try again. normally after it tries again it will try to take a new path. mine doesn't do this yet. they simply wait and wait and wait. so it's not perfect. yet.
the idea is simple, you are not going to get a nice concave if you just a-move. your army will not be at it's most efficient when moving around (seems about right dont it?)
i like it alot better. positioning is much more important as is awareness.
i did a test with my mod, i put 7 siege tanks in siege mode and a-moved 200 marines into them. every marine died and not a scratch on any of the tanks. i did the same thing but spread them out and did my best to make a concave. i killed all the tanks fairly easily. i think this is a nice dynamic and creates a large disparity between a low and high skilled player. a high skilled player might be able to break that tank line with superior play. while a low skilled player would get demolished.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
I disagree with you on that point and have already stated from the post previously that there is no sign that players will have difficulty moving across the map with his modification also there is no additional micro in doing so . If you click the unit to go above the ramp the units will accomplish that objective there is no need to micro it as if goliaths are walking up the ramp in broodwar.
yea... it's not like im making you pull off some sick micro to get units up a ramp or else half wont make it. it's more. you might move your army from one side of the map to the other and it will become vulnerable and be out of position. it wont be ready for a fight in this state.
Yes. This is what is needed!! That was a great demo for this. Large armies are too easy to control . The way it should be is that a large army that is a-moved into a well controlled and placed much smaller army should just be decimated. If we bring this to blizzard's notice and get their support maybe they can do more to make this possible with the tools at their disposal and at the same time look smooth. I'm thinking Civ 5 vs 4 where they broke up the Civ4 deathballs by imposing a unit per tile rule which IMO makes battles look more epic and army positioning more important since you couldn't just move a big block with every type of unit on that tile to an enemy city.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
I disagree with you on that point and have already stated from the post previously that there is no sign that players will have difficulty moving across the map with his modification also there is no additional micro in doing so . If you click the unit to go above the ramp the units will accomplish that objective there is no need to micro it as if goliaths are walking up the ramp in broodwar.
yea... it's not like im making you pull off some sick micro to get units up a ramp or else half wont make it. it's more. you might move your army from one side of the map to the other and it will become vulnerable and be out of position. it wont be ready for a fight in this state.
Yes. This is what is needed!! That was a great demo for this. Large armies are too easy to control . The way it should be is that a large army that is a-moved into a well controlled and placed much smaller army should just be decimated. If we bring this to blizzard's notice and get their support maybe they can do more to make this possible with the tools at their disposal and at the same time look smooth. I'm thinking Civ 5 vs 4 where they broke up the Civ4 deathballs by imposing a unit per tile rule which IMO makes battles look more epic and army positioning more important since you couldn't just move a big block with every type of unit on that tile to an enemy city.
Just switch to terran if you think large army are too easy to control. You cant "a-move" terran armys at any point of the game.
On July 07 2012 21:35 Sawamura wrote: I have already check both the video one in the op post and the sc2 bw one the only difference is the op one he didn't test it with a ramp while the sc2bw had it tested the units passing through the ramp . I see no signs of AI degradation you have already posted in your post.
At this point I'm happy to conclude that you're either blind, or trolling.
Watch the default sc2 movement in the sc2bw video. See how it's nice and smooth. Now watch the later movement. See how half the units actually stop moving at the corners, and it takes at least 3 times as long for them to negotiate the ramps.
So let me get this straight if you don't like the idea of units moving slowly through the ramp with the sc2 bw mods although the units are more spread out than the default mode . Than don't install it and play sc2 in default mode. I don't see the need to hate the mod .
This is the last time I reply to you, since you're so determined to troll.
I'm not hating the mod. If you want something that plays like BW, that's fine. It's great that people mod SC2, and do whatever they want to do with it.
However, people appear to be discussing improvements to the standard SC2 AI in this thread. I'm saying that the sc2bw one should not be a candidate for this because of the points I made, although I would be interested to see it with the changes MavercK mentions.
It seems that the main objective of the OP's modified movement was to make it easier to keep units in formation. This arguably improves viewer experience and player experience as less micro to keep units spread out while moving. At the same time, the need to constantly spread / reshape your army while moving is the only thing removed. Other aspects of micro remain the same.
MavercK seems to be focussed on doing the opposite - increasing the amount of micro required to do basic things like move around the map. I don't agree that this is necessary or beneficial for standard SC2. There's already a vast amount that can be done by a skilled player to improve engagements (whether that's positional awareness / map vision or unit micro (splitting / concaves / AOE avoidance / focus fire etc.)).
I disagree with you on that point and have already stated from the post previously that there is no sign that players will have difficulty moving across the map with his modification also there is no additional micro in doing so . If you click the unit to go above the ramp the units will accomplish that objective there is no need to micro it as if goliaths are walking up the ramp in broodwar.
yea... it's not like im making you pull off some sick micro to get units up a ramp or else half wont make it. it's more. you might move your army from one side of the map to the other and it will become vulnerable and be out of position. it wont be ready for a fight in this state.
Yes. This is what is needed!! That was a great demo for this. Large armies are too easy to control . The way it should be is that a large army that is a-moved into a well controlled and placed much smaller army should just be decimated. If we bring this to blizzard's notice and get their support maybe they can do more to make this possible with the tools at their disposal and at the same time look smooth. I'm thinking Civ 5 vs 4 where they broke up the Civ4 deathballs by imposing a unit per tile rule which IMO makes battles look more epic and army positioning more important since you couldn't just move a big block with every type of unit on that tile to an enemy city.
The way you make Blizzard take notice is by playing MavercK's SC2BW mod once he impliments this.
This literally left tears in my eyes. It's glorious. Absolutely glorious.
It's actually realistic, and gives so much more micro potential like BW. We need to start a movement guys. We need to get something done for the future of SC2.
On July 08 2012 00:23 Black[CAT] wrote: I just get this feeling that Blizzard wont do anything.
We should all just move to SC2BW.
or to a modded version of SC2 but with Maverick's pathing.
Obvious Blizzard doesn't want the more casual players or the newcomers to rage over this so they will be cautious. The only way they'd implement it is if and only if the vast majority of the community support it unanimously.
I'm so pumped that we can find a middle ground between BW and SC2 to get the best out of each! Maverick for president!
I love this, even as a protoss that would be hurt by the AOE nerf.
It seems like a simple fix that would have a great impact on the game, and it just looks a lot nicer.
I would also like to see some more refined movement ai. For instance, units selected and grouped together should move at the same speed, ie stalkers and colossus wouldn't run in front of zealots, medivacs and hellions wouldn't outpace their infantry/tank support, etc.
keep pushing this up, I'd love to see it get some traction.
On July 08 2012 02:37 quillian wrote: units selected and grouped together should move at the same speed, ie stalkers and colossus wouldn't run in front of zealots, medivacs and hellions wouldn't outpace their infantry/tank support, etc.
This is the complete opposite of what we're trying to do. We want armies to be more heterogenous and require more micro, not auto-move at the same speed.
On July 06 2012 23:26 LaLuSh wrote: For some reason, how long a worker spends mining a mineral field can't be changed in the editor. This has led the community to try fewer resource nodes per base, lower yield mining and other convoluted solutions to a problem that has an obvious fix (except it's not available in the editor).
It's possible, i did it in my own experiments with data editor.
How? Some guy pointed to the OP. But as far as I can tell the OP only talks about tweaking unit formation settings, not about mining.
I've searched around a lot for this and haven't found it.
mineral patches have a behavior on them, edit this behavior.
Wish I had thought of this before spending 2 hours tweaking every variable on workers ^^
On July 07 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote: What is misguided about supporting the custom map scene as a vehicle for creating the game the community wants to play? One only need to look at DOTA.
The part that's misguided is bringing up radical overhauls to the game in a thread focused on implementing only a minor tweak for usability. That is not what this thread is about. Comparing the two is only giving credibility to the people accusing the OP & supporters of trying to change SC2 only out of love for BW. Likewise with the follow-up posts about MavercK's pathing changes and SC2BW. To keep with your DotA analogy, it's like responding to a thread about moving a creep camp on turtle rock slightly closer to a given main (with a given test map and reasoning as to why the change is useful) by suggesting that Rikimaru should be added to TFT because he sure would be a great hero.
As far as it matters, MavercK's attempt is breaking the pathing to make it "more BW-like" -- which is the point of his BROOD WAR REMAKE, -- whereas the OP is just adjusting the size of the existing magic box to keep the units from clumping so aggressively.
That's what I mean when I say it's "misguided", and that's how I'd describe most of the last two pages here talking about the SC2BW video, too. A very small change to how armies are currently controlled is a completely different topic from what's shown in those videos. They aren't the same class of change at all. I think this is also what netherh was trying to say with
On July 07 2012 20:50 netherh wrote: You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
Although opinions will vary about whether or not this is making the pathing AI better or worse, it has nothing to do with the OP's MM maps. It doesn't belong here. It even seems a little unfair to even bring them up here, I think, because the people praising the changes in SC2BW aren't going to be testing MM maps, due to them being so significantly different/disconnected.
On July 07 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote: What is misguided about supporting the custom map scene as a vehicle for creating the game the community wants to play? One only need to look at DOTA.
The part that's misguided is bringing up radical overhauls to the game in a thread focused on implementing only a minor tweak for usability. That is not what this thread is about. Comparing the two is only giving credibility to the people accusing the OP & supporters of trying to change SC2 only out of love for BW. Likewise with the follow-up posts about MavercK's pathing changes and SC2BW. To keep with your DotA analogy, it's like responding to a thread about moving a creep camp on turtle rock slightly closer to a given main (with a given test map and reasoning as to why the change is useful) by suggesting that Rikimaru should be added to TFT because he sure would be a great hero.
As far as it matters, MavercK's attempt is breaking the pathing to make it "more BW-like" -- which is the point of his BROOD WAR REMAKE, -- whereas the OP is just adjusting the size of the existing magic box to keep the units from clumping so aggressively.
That's what I mean when I say it's "misguided", and that's how I'd describe most of the last two pages here talking about the SC2BW video, too. A very small change to how armies are currently controlled is a completely different topic from what's shown in those videos. They aren't the same class of change at all. I think this is also what netherh was trying to say with
On July 07 2012 20:50 netherh wrote: You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
Although opinions will vary about whether or not this is making the pathing AI better or worse, it has nothing to do with the OP's MM maps. It doesn't belong here. It even seems a little unfair to even bring them up here, I think, because the people praising the changes in SC2BW aren't going to be testing MM maps, due to them being so significantly different/disconnected.
But... we're not changing it purely out of love for BW. Many people have already pointed out that it looks a lot more spectator friendly.
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
This is exactly how it works in in Sc2. The magic boxes in sc2 seem to be a bit smaller. All the MM mod does is that it makes the magic box very big.
Yupp, the sc2 editor has 2 values for the magic box. Magic Box for ground units = Formation Diameter (Mixed) Magic Box for air units = Formation Diameter (Air) Standard setting is 6 for ground and 8 for air, the op changed the one for ground units to 50.
Some pictures for magic boxes in sc2 (spoilered): + Show Spoiler +
Marines placed at a distance of 5, click goes outside the magic box: The result is they stay in formation: Distance is now 6, thats too big for the magic box: so the marines don't keep formation:
Both boxes for air and ground units (approximately):
Units in magic box, move command inside magic box -> no formation Units in magic box, move command outside magix box -> formation Units not in magic box, move command in/outside magic box -> no formation
Also unit size does matter. Replace the observers with banshees in the exact same positions in the image above and they won't fit in the magic box any more.
On July 07 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote: What is misguided about supporting the custom map scene as a vehicle for creating the game the community wants to play? One only need to look at DOTA.
The part that's misguided is bringing up radical overhauls to the game in a thread focused on implementing only a minor tweak for usability. That is not what this thread is about. Comparing the two is only giving credibility to the people accusing the OP & supporters of trying to change SC2 only out of love for BW. Likewise with the follow-up posts about MavercK's pathing changes and SC2BW. To keep with your DotA analogy, it's like responding to a thread about moving a creep camp on turtle rock slightly closer to a given main (with a given test map and reasoning as to why the change is useful) by suggesting that Rikimaru should be added to TFT because he sure would be a great hero.
As far as it matters, MavercK's attempt is breaking the pathing to make it "more BW-like" -- which is the point of his BROOD WAR REMAKE, -- whereas the OP is just adjusting the size of the existing magic box to keep the units from clumping so aggressively.
That's what I mean when I say it's "misguided", and that's how I'd describe most of the last two pages here talking about the SC2BW video, too. A very small change to how armies are currently controlled is a completely different topic from what's shown in those videos. They aren't the same class of change at all. I think this is also what netherh was trying to say with
On July 07 2012 20:50 netherh wrote: You can't pretend like making the AI worse is an actual solution to anything (other than nostalgia for BW players).
Although opinions will vary about whether or not this is making the pathing AI better or worse, it has nothing to do with the OP's MM maps. It doesn't belong here. It even seems a little unfair to even bring them up here, I think, because the people praising the changes in SC2BW aren't going to be testing MM maps, due to them being so significantly different/disconnected.
The problem is that a mod with a minor change is unable to generate the DOTA critical mass. The FRB is a good example of this. However if you bundle a bunch of the features that the community wants into a new game mode and new expeirence than you have a much better chance the community will start playing it en mass.
Why don't the units outside the magic box just clump back up into the magic box, instead of clumping into the center point?
Considering how many units you are able to select in SC2 shouldn't the magic boxes be bigger? That is kind of the effect of unlimiting things you have to make things bigger so there is room for everything.
Magic boxes take up less screen area in SC2 than in BW and with the increased unit selection cap doubling or tripling the "Formation Diameter" values seems pretty reasonable. Even 50% would help.
This is a great idea and already feels better in unit tester. I'd like to see lots of high level replays to first see if this change really is that simple. AoE would definitely need to be buffed as many have said. Its not that we want sc2 to be broodwar, its just broodwar was much more of a strategy game compared to simcity2:starcraft edition.
However, i believe that there will be even more resistance to this than seen in this thread. Many people who haven't played broodwar and many more who have a low skill level will be very against the idea of having to do something other than making a single group fart around the map and hump another single group.
Thinking about what to do based on comp/geography(pre-splitting formations) and making specific groups based on specialty, bigger penalty for a-moving into bad positions w/o scout(stronger AoE), and more micro during a battle are all things lesser players will not like. This will definitely raise the skill ceiling. This is one of the reasons BW was so good and warranted a sequel in the first place.
I dont mean to be so longwinded or harsh, but i also think the resource rates + macro mechanics have only hurt the game and in a way(prmotes max deathball) it raises the skill ceiling like blizz intended but only lends itself to maxing out armies quicker and leaving less time for strategy. (again something lower skilled players will embrace and not let go).
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
This is exactly how it works in in Sc2. The magic boxes in sc2 seem to be a bit smaller. All the MM mod does is that it makes the magic box very big.
According to MavercK the magic box sizes are the same for SC1 and SC2.
On July 13 2012 01:41 Archerofaiur wrote: According to MavercK the magic box sizes are the same for SC1 and SC2.
Hmm, yeah. From looking briefly they seem to take up about the same area at 4:3, It just looks smaller with a widescreen ratio. Considering that and unlimited unit selection I think they could still stand to be made a bit bigger.
This thread was kind of ruinned when some people started including the bad pathing of BW into the original idea. The pathing in BW was bad and nothing but the result of the limitations of an old game. With the capabilities of nowadays we can get a good realistic pathing, not clumped like SC2, not freeze-go-freeze like BW. Moreover, there are plenty of other RTS games out there, whose pathing may have much better ideas to draw from than a 10+ year old game.
I'm bumping this because there is a topic on battle.net concerning it. If you want this to happen, even to test during the HOTS beta, please thumb up and request a sticky.
On July 07 2012 04:11 Plexa wrote: Dno if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but... imo it would probably be better if something like the magic box from BW was implemented. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Magic_Boxes
If units were within those boxes (one is for air, other ground) then they would stay in formation. Outside, they would ball up.
This is exactly how it works in in Sc2. The magic boxes in sc2 seem to be a bit smaller. All the MM mod does is that it makes the magic box very big.
According to MavercK the magic box sizes are the same for SC1 and SC2.
i've been messing with the data editor a lot lately, proportionately the air and ground boxes are the same size to the building grid, but a combination of widescreen and the 3d angle makes the game a bit more zoomed out, which causes them to feel a lot smaller
the other thing was that because you could only select 12 units, it was much harder to select a group of units that didn't all reside in a single magic box by accident, now the ground magic boxes feel so small you have to box less than 1/4 of your screen height to get them not to spread out
since 1.5 if you order units around on a patrol command you can see the individual patrol lines either converge on a point if the box is too big or not if it's a magic box, and get a sense of exactly how big they are
not a bw fan, but this should be implemented. watched 2 years of bw before sc2, and i prefer sc2, but this unit movement is very different and would cause much editing in how we (all) play
I saw this because of the Anti-Deathball threads in the HOTS forum.
I just finished reading and skimming about 60% of this thread. I am bumping this almost 1 month old thread because I think this really deserves a look.
For those who haven't read the thread, this has not really been tested much. High level or normal players both. It's all talk about "which AOE needs needs buffing", "OMG this is great" or "This will definitely break game ballance, boooo".
I was supposed to be one of those "OMG this is great" guys BTW when I watched the first video. But the second one, I saw that formations weren't even used much so it's not a good example. I haven't seen how this will be used. So no, I think everyone should not form their opinions yet. I think there should be a test tournament or something. Maybe ask HD or Husky to organize a HOTS tournament with the setting enabled like that pHD HOTS tournament.
I think everyone should be testing instead of debating if this should be done or not.
BTW to do your own testing, the setting has moved in the latest version of the Editor. 1. Go to the Data Editor 2. Click on the "+" tab and find "Gameplay Data" 3. Double click on "Default SC2 Gameplay Settings" and you will find the Formation Diameter Fields on the right pane.
The OP states that he set the Formation Diameter setting to 50. I went into Galaxy Editor and found that the default values are:
Formation Diameter Air = 8 Formation Diameter Mixed = 6
I have done some testing myself and found that for the "Air" setting, is set optimally to 8 so Stacking and Magic Boxing for Air Units (Mutas) are about the same difficulty click-speed and accuracy wise. If you change it, you will definitely break air.
I find it weird that the setting is lower for "Mixed" though. If you bump it up to 8, the clumping is somewhat minimized already. The 6 setting makes it look like Blizzard deliberately wanted ground units to clump up. Maybe in the WOL Alpha they felt its a buff for AOE or something. However, maps then and now are much more different.
A setting of 50 is too much. It's good if you want to illustrate a point. But I found that formations will still stick even if units are more than 1 screen apart. I think the optimal setting might be somewhere between 8 and 30.
There will still be clumping and it will not be eliminated. Chokes will still have the same effect. But I found that with formations at about mixed setting to 12, single unit micro is easier. You can pull that individual stalker from your 200/200 army. Which I think will actually raise the micro ceiling for the game.
Anyway, I will try to post my own video. Just need to figure out how to make one.
I would like to see this to change so much. Because of the situation now some aoe spells/dmg is are now deciding factors of the game. Storms/fungals can catch nearly half of the army and banelings/colosus are pain in the ass if you are trying to micro but your units when moving are clumping up. (playing terran btw) I don't think it will bring a great difference in pro games but mostly for mid and low it would mean alot when micro is on a lower level. Im aware that some of the AOE spells should have wider radius in this situation but still this would mean you would not have to split ur forces in fight but plan ahead to not get caught with AOE.
If there was a feature to change it in settings i think most of us would change it to BW style. Also the clump up feature(introduced in sc2) was shown as a good thing but instead it is disadvantageous in fights with AOE.
This would make this game much more fun, in that it stops becoming a "who can move their wrists and fingers faster" competition to split units in the middle of a battle so they don't get chain fungaled to death...
On October 24 2012 12:11 xsnac wrote: i dont like it for the simple fact that makes the game easier . split units should be something you train and achieve with hard working .
Actually it makes the game much, much harder. Your dps ball is now greatly reduced. Units die much slower. You have much more time to pull individual things back, push other things forward. More time to micro the actual battle itself. Look at how long fights in sc2 last right now. 8 seconds max. Then one or both armies are completely obliterated. There's hardly any micro within the fight itself, it's all prefight micro. I want to see micro during the fight. And I dont just mean storm or emp.
xsnac: It's not "auto split"... it's "don't freaking screw up the split I just spent 30 seconds of game time building"
All it's doing is making the magic box bigger, which in my opinion is loooooong overdue
And on that topic, just played a game on mmdaybreak with those settings, doesn't FEEL that much different, but at the same time it makes maneuvering of your army in-battle a lot easier. For example, you can have your units on one hotkey, move, and they don't just ball up 0.5 seconds before the batch of banelings shows up.
But chokes make the same effect happen (balling up), so it's not like it's some magic fix. Point is, you can throw your army out onto the map on say antiga, pre-spread, and move across the map without worrying about running into a batch of 6 banelings that kills 65 of your marines just because on the way, your marines decided to get together like a bunch of teenage girls and start telling stories to eachother.
DBrowder als Rock responded this topic,,,,,,,,Enjoy:
"We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it. Since you tend to cluster your units at rally points they tend to move as blobs. Units in this code cluster when the reach their destination the blobbing still occured. Because as a player you rarely make an attack-move action across the entire map, you usually make lots of small atack-moves from place to place the units all blobbed up immediately as you moved around.
We spent several days just trying different versions of this and we never could get something that made a real difference in a live game.
I am of the opinion that pro players can and should spread out their units more by hand. The benefits are enormous. Fortunately we are starting to see this in some games and I expect this trend to continue."
Posted by Lazo Couldn't we just make a certain hotkey so that while you hold it all units will move according to their original positions? For instance you split your marines and then right click while holding (toggling?) a hotkey. This allows Zerg to avoid Vortexes or and Terran banelings.
Which problem are we trying to solve here?
A) Pros can't split their units so esports looks bad. B) Ladder players can't split their units and it should be easier to split your units.
If "A" then I would say the problem is solved. They should split their units. Pros who do so will win games, Pros who do not will lose games. Should we make the game easier for Pros? The impression I have gotten from the community and the Pros themselves on this subject is a resounding "No."
If "B" then I'm not sure we want to solve this? If it's a game of skill, then you need to learn to split your units. In Broodwar you had to learn to move your units. With a limited unit selection it was difficult to move a large army. Now it is easy to move your army, but harder to use them correctly in a big fight.
Sounds like a better experience for a newer user to me? It's certainly what I would want as a player. If I'm going to be challenged I don't want it to be "how can I get my units into the fight." I would rather it be "my units got to the fight, how do I optimize their positions."
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it. Since you tend to cluster your units at rally points they tend to move as blobs. Units in this code cluster when the reach their destination the blobbing still occured.
We spent several days just trying different versions of this and we never could get something that made a real difference in a live game.
I'm sorry Rock, but I'm going to have to call total and complete crap on what you said here. Yes, they're still going to clump up when they get to their destination. Duh. That goes without saying. What matters is, the time during which they're on the way to their destination. It wouldn't be that hard for people to attack move a little further away from the battle in order to keep their units in position. I'm pretty sure most people A move PAST the enemy army anyway, and not directly before it (which is what would cause the reclumping).
You can make an argument for the fact that it would make the game too easy for pros, but don't try to pretend like adjusting the values don't do anything. That's simply a lie.
You can easily test this yourself using the editor. I don't think you will find it makes much of a difference. We had multiple groups of people play and we could not tell that anything had actually happened. We were not trying to manipulate the units in any unusual way, we just played normally.
Since clumping is beneficial in many situations I don't think this will change the way the game is played unless you are about to fight Banelings, Fungal, Psi Storm, etc. Only then should you split. In that case I don't think we want splitting to be automated. We want avoiding splash to be a skill thing. Right?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1jyDH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7OPuh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zA2aN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/0/0a/Derp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Iu76i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CWPtz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/15lnp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lhWpQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mhLYt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nTGX9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dvj3u.jpg)
