Hey. I'm not sure if I can add anything more than what've been said. You said it well in the OP, Mr.
The problem with what you've said, I feel is, what others have already said, it's intentional on Blizzard's behalf. While we can discuss it's implications it comes to a full stop because what you've said is a fact, the stuff dies quicker and so the death ball is really powerful. The reason I feel is because of point 4.
I fear this thread doesn't leave much to costructively discuss but will derail in a discussion/argument between people who argues for/against the math combined with for/against the human limitations, in the end, they are still there.
Anyway, just to round things off, your post is really good, and if not for other reasons I think people should read it just to improve their understanding of why games play out the way they do.
Considering that Blizzard didn't intend for players to play at Fastest, and that the early battle reports were played at fast, I think it's more than reasonable to agree with the OP.\
Hope something will be done in the coming expansions regarding this, and so many other issues.
On July 13 2012 01:13 Blazinghand wrote: I'd like to say I think your basic point, which is that "armies in sc2 destroy each other too quickly and easily", is correct, but again I think that psi storm in BW was devestatingly strong, like amazingly strong, with a massive AoE and huge burst damage, the likes of which perhaps you have never experienced. The Sc2 psistorm is but a pale shadow of the BW psistorm.
The issue isn't how quickly armies destroy each other, but how easily they do so, and the amount of apm and control it takes to get an army to actually do something.
Anyone who's played BW extensively HAS seen fights turn very quickly when certain units were brought into play, such as vessels, tanks, storms, reavers, lurkers, etc. The reason armies destroyed each other more slowly in BW wasn't that there was somehow less dps or spells and units were slower at dealing damage-- in fact, most units, such as the tank, reaver, storm, etc, dealt massive, massive burst damage to many units.
No, the reason armies destroyed each other more slowly in BW has to do with the way they are controlled, the lack of smartcast, the pathing, and the low unit selection delimiter. You want to know why Jangbi's storms are legendary? Because properly used, storms rip though everything, and BW is a damn hard game to play. Go play BW against your friend, and try doing ANYTHING the pros do.
The reason Sc2 seems boring and flat to some has to do with the fundamental mechanics of the game. Does the colossus or marine have too much dps? sure, maybe. But that's definitely not the problem. The problem of overpowered units haunts BW as well. That just makes things hilarious. The problem is that Sc2 is a game where you can control 255 units at once, and you can command your army to attack as easily as your opponent can defend.
I used to accuse my cousin, a protoss player, of 1a2a3aing me. You know why? Because even with 70 food of army, 1a2a3a is the FASTEST he can get his whole army to move. Even 1aing was harder in that game.
BW is a monumental struggle to have enough apm to get everything done. Every race has ridiculous overpowered units and spells of all varieties, and it's all impossible to use.
I may not be explaining things well, and who knows, maybe I'm wrong, I was a shitty BW player and still am. But the idea that making all the units kill each other slower will get rid of deathballing is preposterous. As long as its' as easy to control 255 units as it is to control 12, and as long as the game doesn't get exponentially more difficult as you add more units and bases and try to keep everything running, Sc2 will never be BW.
And that's okay.
They're different games.
OP is saying the exact same thing, but from a different angle. He's saying that all these things you say make BW a different game from SC2 translate into one concept few people talk about, which is fundamentally time. The higher DPS units, the UI changes, the AI changes, all add up to the concept that players are unable to keep up with the insane speed SC2 has in comparison to BW.
He's basically saying that physical limits of our human bodies make it so it's practically impossible to overcome the speed of the game with micro alone, which makes it so the most effective way of using your units is the so called deathball. I've always thought that players will eventually be able to use smaller groups of units in a way that is more effective than just 1Aing all your army, and from a theoretical standpoint it looks possible and logical that micro can defeat strong AOE, but I actually hadn't thought that it might not be possible. This point has actually been proven before with AI maps that dodge storms, banelings or tank shots in such a way that the armies take the least possible damage, but the APM required exceeds the thousands IIRC.
Basically, considering all the changes, in order to play SC2 like BW you'd need 10x the APM of the fastest BW players. I'm not saying the game is harder, I'm saying the speed of the game and the improvements make it so this happens.
The OP is saying that while reavers and storms and tanks deal INSANE amounts of damage in BW, the time resource invested in making them be effective makes micro and positioning be a lot more relevant to the game outcome. He's saying that making things kill each other slower is an idea that would allow players to keep up with the game without disabling the AI and UI changes made in SC2.
This seems like the answer to all the different problems discussed in this thread.
Are you suggesting we transcend our physical bodies while playing Sc2?
No? I'm saying that our bodies are not able to respond quickly enough to micro perfectly against the high dps/high focus numbers in lategame armies.
Oh, I think I misread you. I thought you were saying that the underlying problem with Sc2 is that we are limited by having physical bodies... so we need to transcend and become beings of pure intellect if we want to play Sc2 at a higher level.
Imagine the pros burning aura in their booths during intense micro situations lol
Artosis "OMG, Nestea is transforming into Super Sayan 3. He is so much faster now."
I feel sc2 has too much emphasis on macro and initial positioning as a result of this terrible damage syndrome. Other than a few caster units, your micro apm such as pulling a weak unit out or dropship micro requires too much effort for reward. Units need to be more than just an attacker with hp,damage,attack speed and more like vultures or ghosts or HT. A unit that has potential to be more than what its statistics are depending on the micro of a player.
I feel reaper's timebomb thing back in Beta was a step in the right direction? For a mediocre player, the unit is a harass and deals dps. The pros however is capable of maximizing its potential with micro.
Units like collosus/immortals and siegetanks whilst benefit from target firing, can the effort exerted from such actions be justified by the apm required? Units are made and die so fast in SC 2 does it really matter whether or not you can micro to achieve a slightly favourable outcome?
On July 12 2012 23:55 naastyOne wrote: I think a lot of that, if not most is intentional.
SC2 was build around 10-20 minutes per match in mind, not 40-60 like BW. Thus, it is faster in most ways.
Again, to stress it, is is not a bug, it is a feature, that was intended.
I think there's something to that. I remember some of Blizzards early explanations of some of their changes/ features were about speeding up the game.
Things like starting with 6 workers rather than probes were to get the players out the early game which had they felt were rather boring/ lot's of dead time. (I guess Bisu probe micro and zealot, marine, zergling shenangins didn't count.) Same with the macro mechanics. Partially it was to create an "APM sink" and partially it was to speed up the game to get to the so-called more interesting parts.
I've also always felt that the faster DPS and faster battle deaths was due to an over-reaction due to complaints from Warcraft 3. Post-Warcraft 3 they heard loud and clear that units were far too beefy so they made "terrible, terrible damage" only they went too far.
I also seem to recall that they wanted games to be around 20 minutes on average, but I'd have to find some very old beta era interviews.
I think you are pretty spot on with most this. Dustin Browder said that they wanted to make a game that was "exciting from the minute the game starts" when he was asked about "cheese" during the beta. As game design goes, its not a bad idea and having a fast moving game is not the worst thing in the world.
A lot of people get really caught up on the "defenders advantage", which is a hard thing for most game designers to get "spot on". If the defenders advantage is to strong, player will naturally turtle and not interact with eachother or be agressive. They wanted to avoid over-rewarding passive play to keep the game dynamic and active. This may have lead one of the factors in the death ball issue, but avoided an overly passive game. Also, any buff to defense makes any cheese that uses it more powerful. More powerful spingcrawlers means more powerful spinecrawler rushes in zvz. Better bunkers means better bunker rushes.
I wish they had added more progressive upgrades for defenses in HotS. Upgrading missle turrets to have an AOE, but only at the extream end game. Something to allow players invest in securing sections of the map without using supply, but that also could be covercome by micro and effective control.
I think the OP is spot on about the DPS issues as well. If you watch BW, everything moves slower, but in a really predictable rhythm that SC2 does not have. There is more to do, but the game also moved at a speed that allowed players to respond. Even siege tanks fired in a fashion that allowed both players to know what was happening and respond before the next shot is fired. Everything was crazy powerful in BW, but it was crazy shit you saw coming.
But I also think making a modern game means you have to move away from the restrictions that made BW great. Only being able to control 12 units is not acceptable in a modern game, regardless of how skilled it makes the talented players. If it creates the death ball issue, it is best for everyone to put their heads together and find away to remove that. More powerful tanks might be a start, but that could just lead to fields of tanks instead of the death ball. I also think units like the widow mine are a good concept, as it is front loaded DPS that punishes players for looking away. Leveling the playing field accross races and their "micro requirements" also means that everyone gets the same cost to benefit ratio for their efforts, even if there are units that are a-move friendly.
Also, a subtle adjustment to pathing in HotS to prevent the ball every time an army stops might help. The fact that every time an army moves, it becomes a round blob of DPS does not help the cause.
As some of you mentioned in this thread and as I recall from the early days of StarCraft 2 news, the games in the battle reports were played at the "Fast" setting. If I'm not mistaken this was even the case in early closed beta but I'm not too sure anymore.
If anything, it seems like this is one of the easiest settings to change and fiddle around with, without the requirement of drastic changes to the game engine. The effect it will have on micro and its value in large scale battles remains to be seen, but at least it only requires 2 clicks to set the game speed to Fast.
I am also wondering if increasing the duration and area of effect of AOE spells, with the proper damage scaling, would create more interesting situations. Although Blizzard did quite some experimenting with that already. Thanks for the feedback so far, it might help increase the understanding of the game for forum readers and perhaps some renewed disussion at Blizzard HQ. (slim chance but I'll take it with an expansion beta around the corner)
Huh? I though this would be a topic about how DPS affects skirmishes with different numbers of units but it's all just BW comparisons? Really? Come on.
The comparisons are only there to reinforce my thoughts. And if you read carefully there is enough talk about the effect that DPS has on battles once they reach a large size. It also mentions skirmishes are also really dependable on the macro mechanics of the game, next to the way higher DPS per real time second due to various changes including UI and how that promotes a certain way of playing the game.
Please do not confuse this with "SC2 should be BW!".
I would rewrite the samples sometime to explain it without using BW comparisons to reinforce my thoughts, but alas I have arm injuries and even writing replies or altering small parts hurts like hell (already crossed the treshold today), sorry.
I just wanted to say thank you for putting this together it is a great read of a great analysis and cements many things i'd felt about SC2. I like how you discuss the DPS in relation to the Macro mechanics / gathering rate of SC2. For a long time i'd suspected the income rates to be a huge culprit in why SC2 was so much less strategic especially after the FRB discussion and how the game overall now allows for very little room for comebacks which makes it much less interesting to play and watch. Coupling it with the DPS changes you have made a very strong argument of how to make SC2 better.
The amount of people who don't understand that this and many other discussions aren't a "i want sc2 to be BW" discussion is astounding. I suppose they were not around to play and watch BW to really understand why with its lesser pathing, graphics, and not so smart casting it was just a better game overall. At its core, BOTH games are strategy games and many fundamental mechanics in SC2 take away from that, and its not technological advancements or disadvantages, they are core concepts. SC2 is a great game but something has been missing. If you weren't around for BW or never spent enough time on it, SC2 is without a doubt the best RTS you will have played, but it could be better.
On July 13 2012 01:13 Blazinghand wrote: I'd like to say I think your basic point, which is that "armies in sc2 destroy each other too quickly and easily", is correct, but again I think that psi storm in BW was devestatingly strong, like amazingly strong, with a massive AoE and huge burst damage, the likes of which perhaps you have never experienced. The Sc2 psistorm is but a pale shadow of the BW psistorm.
The issue isn't how quickly armies destroy each other, but how easily they do so, and the amount of apm and control it takes to get an army to actually do something.
Anyone who's played BW extensively HAS seen fights turn very quickly when certain units were brought into play, such as vessels, tanks, storms, reavers, lurkers, etc. The reason armies destroyed each other more slowly in BW wasn't that there was somehow less dps or spells and units were slower at dealing damage-- in fact, most units, such as the tank, reaver, storm, etc, dealt massive, massive burst damage to many units.
No, the reason armies destroyed each other more slowly in BW has to do with the way they are controlled, the lack of smartcast, the pathing, and the low unit selection delimiter. You want to know why Jangbi's storms are legendary? Because properly used, storms rip though everything, and BW is a damn hard game to play. Go play BW against your friend, and try doing ANYTHING the pros do.
The reason Sc2 seems boring and flat to some has to do with the fundamental mechanics of the game. Does the colossus or marine have too much dps? sure, maybe. But that's definitely not the problem. The problem of overpowered units haunts BW as well. That just makes things hilarious. The problem is that Sc2 is a game where you can control 255 units at once, and you can command your army to attack as easily as your opponent can defend.
I used to accuse my cousin, a protoss player, of 1a2a3aing me. You know why? Because even with 70 food of army, 1a2a3a is the FASTEST he can get his whole army to move. Even 1aing was harder in that game.
BW is a monumental struggle to have enough apm to get everything done. Every race has ridiculous overpowered units and spells of all varieties, and it's all impossible to use.
I may not be explaining things well, and who knows, maybe I'm wrong, I was a shitty BW player and still am. But the idea that making all the units kill each other slower will get rid of deathballing is preposterous. As long as its' as easy to control 255 units as it is to control 12, and as long as the game doesn't get exponentially more difficult as you add more units and bases and try to keep everything running, Sc2 will never be BW.
And that's okay.
They're different games.
OP is saying the exact same thing, but from a different angle. He's saying that all these things you say make BW a different game from SC2 translate into one concept few people talk about, which is fundamentally time. The higher DPS units, the UI changes, the AI changes, all add up to the concept that players are unable to keep up with the insane speed SC2 has in comparison to BW.
He's basically saying that physical limits of our human bodies make it so it's practically impossible to overcome the speed of the game with micro alone, which makes it so the most effective way of using your units is the so called deathball. I've always thought that players will eventually be able to use smaller groups of units in a way that is more effective than just 1Aing all your army, and from a theoretical standpoint it looks possible and logical that micro can defeat strong AOE, but I actually hadn't thought that it might not be possible. This point has actually been proven before with AI maps that dodge storms, banelings or tank shots in such a way that the armies take the least possible damage, but the APM required exceeds the thousands IIRC.
Basically, considering all the changes, in order to play SC2 like BW you'd need 10x the APM of the fastest BW players. I'm not saying the game is harder, I'm saying the speed of the game and the improvements make it so this happens.
The OP is saying that while reavers and storms and tanks deal INSANE amounts of damage in BW, the time resource invested in making them be effective makes micro and positioning be a lot more relevant to the game outcome. He's saying that making things kill each other slower is an idea that would allow players to keep up with the game without disabling the AI and UI changes made in SC2.
This seems like the answer to all the different problems discussed in this thread.
Are you suggesting we transcend our physical bodies while playing Sc2?
No? I'm saying that our bodies are not able to respond quickly enough to micro perfectly against the high dps/high focus numbers in lategame armies.
LOL , then you dont even watch top tier players..., they do it.
I just checked the old battle reports and they were all played on "Fast". With the idea that matches need to be action packed, and the changes made to the start of the game (6 instead of 4 workers) + the side effects of DPS being dealt faster and easier due to an improved UI is just a bit too much.
They seem to have changed their SC2 philosophy on the pace of the game though, considering the map layout and size increase even on ladder. So what actually happens now is that due to the favoured playstyle that gets rewarded the most, actual stalemate type games occur more often than not when both players are of ~equal skill. This directly goes against the philosophy that most people mentioned being the reason of SC2 being the way it is.
HotS is the perfect time for Blizzard to re-evaluate their goals and core philosophy of how multiplayer matches should pan out preferably.
they made mistake of making races have better macro or better late game army or whatever, im all for diversity, but making one race better at harras and the other better at macro and late game army, will make game go into deathball army naturaly. If races were even at all points in the game, but with differnt units, we would see less deathballs and more harras small skirmishes. For example if macro and army was even zerg would actually try to harras and get ahead that way agains terran in early game instead of making billion drones since he knows terran cant keep up and the terran would do the same. Lots of small fights slower max, lots of fun.
On July 14 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Everything that is wrong about SC2 is originated from the sin of deathball
You do realise that it was the players and our desire to control their entire army at once that created the death ball. It is the easiest way to play the game, and like water, we take the path of least resistance. We are now asking Blizzard to kill the monster we created. What if they do, and players find another way to make a "new death ball"?
Don't get me wrong, I agree and I hope the Blizzard should try to break up the death ball a bit. But at some level, we are always going to try to get all of our units in one spot and slam them into our opponent. Blizzard has to punish that trend without making the game so fustrating that we snap our keyboards in half.
On July 14 2012 02:02 larse wrote: Everything that is wrong about SC2 is originated from the sin of deathball
You do realise that it was the players and our desire to control their entire army at once that created the death ball. It is the easiest way to play the game, and like water, we take the path of least resistance. We are now asking Blizzard to kill the monster we created. What if they do, and players find another way to make a "new death ball"?
Don't get me wrong, I agree and I hope the Blizzard should try to break up the death ball a bit. But at some level, we are always going to try to get all of our units in one spot and slam them into our opponent. Blizzard has to punish that trend without making the game so fustrating that we snap our keyboards in half.
No matter how hard you control and split your unit, once it's moved or a-moved, it will clump up again. Even if you want to control it in BW way, like selecting 12 units at a time, it's still impossible. In BW no matter how you select your units, it will be 12, but in SC2, if you want to select fewer units at a time, you need to use a small selection box which is difficulty to pull out in all situations even by pros. It's a mechanism that is harder to combat even than the old and hard BW UI and mechanism.
SC2 can't escape the sin of deathball and will always suffer from it. Because Blizzard now is a extremely conservative company that will never take modified movement into the game to solve the deathball problem.
What about lowering DPS by putting in an attack-evading mechanic. This already exists with stalkers who can avoid being damaged with a timely blink. A big effect this would have is punish units for attacking in sync because a pull back would negate more damage.
I feel like it would prolong battles and add a lot of skill into the game.
EPT
