Disclaimer:After getting feedback on my blog, I have taken the time to sit down and calculate the values, alter some paragraphs and add another example to demonstrate the effects that DPS or DPRTS (Damage per Real-Time second) have on the game and how they interact with and influence other elements of the game. After talking to some pro players I added the last updates to make for a (hopefully) interesting and good discussion thread.
Introduction:
This thread will be about the effect that the DPS (Damage per second) values in StarCraft 2 have on the game. In particular I will be looking at the impact it has on battles and comebacks. I will share my thoughts on this topic to get feedback from the community and to start a proper discussion. I will draw some comparisons to Brood War in this blog, to help explain some of my findings. Please do not confuse this with “Changing SC2 to BW”.
What these threads have in common is that they all want to accomplish a similar goal: Creating more incentive to fight smaller skirmishes, diminishing the strength of a “deathball”, to prevent the game from being decided through one battle or “mistake”. Next to that, the FRB idea tries to increase the need for more expansions to be built to be able to create the maximum supply armies.
At the end of this thread I will also briefly write about the effects of the macro mechanics of SC2 and how they promote a certain play style when combined with all the examples and explanations given below.
Goal of this blog: To foster an educated discussion on the current gameplay mechanics of StarCraft 2, and how they play a role in some of the issues that currently plague the different matchup dynamics.
How DPS affects Gameplay
In games like StarCraft 2, DPS and attack rates have a big impact on the pace of the game. They dictate the speed at which battles are decided in favour of one player. Through the use of examples, I will explain a few scenarios to show the effects it has from small scale battles to huge clashes. It will also show the effects that AOE and attack rates have on comebacks and duration of battle.
In this first example, we take a look at the firing rate and DPS of a Mutalisk in BW and SC2. In Brood War, the Mutalisk has a firing rate of one attack per 2 in-game seconds with the same damage per attack as the SC2 Mutalisk, 9. In StarCraft 2, the Mutalisk fires an attack every 1.5246 seconds in-game time. Even if both game values at their fastest speeds are translated into real-time DPS, the SC2 mutalisk still deals about 20% more DPS.
This means that the rate at which the damage value of 9 is dealt, increased in SC2. Their DPS increases. The effects are clear: The Mutalisk kills things faster in SC2, reducing the time of a fight, and reducing the reaction time of the player on the receiving end of said damage.
When player A harasses player B with Mutalisks, player B only has a few seconds to react before his whole mineral line is wiped out, or buildings are sniped. This is not too bad on its own, but it can cause other problems. The prime example being production time compared to damage done in a certain timeframe.
In a hypothetical situation, the receiving player B is a Terran with 10 Barracks worth of production in his base. His army is on the move to secure a strategic location on the map so he will use his next production wave to deal with the Mutalisk threat while his two Missile Turrets die a swift death. In BW, the speed at which damage is dealt is lower, which means the Terran has more time for his wave of 10 marines to finish that can push back the Mutalisks attacking his mineral line. This in turn means that the Mutalisk harass needs more time to be extremely destructive and game changing in terms of the outcome.
Now in the same situation in SC2, it will take the Mutalisks less time to wipe clean your mineral line. The units in SC2 have an equal or slightly faster build time than in BW, but not enough to compensate for the difference in killing speed that the Mutalisks now bring to the table. It now takes less time for the damage to be critical to the outcome of the game, and relatively longer for the next production wave of marines to spawn to fend off the Mutalisks.
One could argue that this DPS increase buffs the incentive to harass your opponent in multiple places, multiple times during the game. This is true when looking at this specific situation. But as I add more examples of bigger attacks and differences in time, something interesting will reveal itself: That in the big picture, harass is oftentime deemed less effective in SC2.
In SC2, most siege units have a very consistent firing rate with strong splash damage. I will take a look at the Siege Tank and the Colossus in this example. Once again I will use BW to help explain my musings on this particular type of unit and damage type.
In SC2 the Siege Tank has a fairly fast firing rate when in Siege mode: 3 seconds (2.175 Real Time seconds). To balance this out, the frontload damage of its siege attack is pretty low at 35 (+15 against armored), and the splash radius is fairly large. This means that when a player makes a positional mistake against this unit, they will take some area of effect damage, but the mistake will not be too punishing in cases where retreating is a possibility. To keep it simple, this situation will be an accidental engagement where the engaging player did not see the Siege tank line beforehand but still has the option to retreat after the first volley.
While it will not be ideal to move in a clumped up formation when engaging this siege line, it will not be punished too harshly. The penalty for engaging with a bad formation is moderate.
It is time to check out the Siege Tank from BW. When it is in siege mode, it will deal 70 damage per shot, with a cooldown of 75 frames (on fastest settings it will be ~3.75 Real Time seconds just to clarify). This means that the frontload damage of the BW Siege tank is extremely high, but it takes a while before consecutive shots are fired.
Now in the same situation where a player engages a Siege Line incorrectly or by mistake, he will get punished a lot harder for engaging with bad positioning. Even if only hit once before correcting the mistake and retreating, the damage is severe. Because of this severity in frontload damage, and only slightly lower sustained DPS over time (mostly due to splash increase of the SC2 tank), the emphasis on proper positioning prior to engaging increases.
If we compare this to a Colossus, which has very high sustained splash DPS, a problem arises. It does so much damage consistently (near 75% more than a Siege Tank) in such a short amount of time, with the beams always hitting, that it lessens the incentive to micro. A micro move against these units barely has any effect at all compared to the time it takes to execute said move versus the damage dealt by the colossus. A concave can help, but the Colossus is so mobile that it can force an engagement on favourable terms with comparative ease. The damage is so high that units die extremely fast and battles are over even faster. Due to the high DPS combined with the mobility of this unit, any mistakes made while fighting against it quickly snowball into a loss. There is less time to respond and rebuild.
Because of the nature of the Colossus, it is generally favourable for the Protoss player to keep these units close together with the rest of their army for maximum damage output. In short, high DPS siege splash units put more emphasis on muscle over micro, where lower splash DPS with higher frontload leans more towards positional engagement priority and rewards micro more.
The power of AOE spells in SC2 is quite strong, but it also has some problems when it comes to the distribution of the damage over a certain amount of time. Take Psi Storm for example, a spell that deals 80 damage over 4 seconds in a relatively small area. This means that the damage builds up extremely fast but that the area of control is relatively small, and the DPS lower than a BW storm (double checked the numbers). Here is where the comparison to BW Psi storm comes in.
In BW, a Psi Storm deals 112 damage over 8ticks of 14 damage. It deals this damage over a larger radius as well and deals its damage at about the same speed as Psi Storm from SC2. In BW it was really hard to cast multiple Psi Storms when compared to SC2 (no smart casting in BW), so it was relatively harder to blanket armies. Due to the larger area of effect, it was a better tool to control the board to make up for it.
Battles that involve the old Psi Storm last longer and allow for more control for both the casting and receiving player. There is more time for production waves of units to finish and for reinforcements to arrive, further increasing the duration of fights and their aftermaths. Comebacks are also slightly easier to be made when more production waves can finish before the enemy stands at your doorstep.
It seems that in this case, the higher DPS of the BW spell combined with the time needed to set up storms actually lowers the odds of the same DPS being put out by storms in the first place. Perhaps a slower buildup of damage but a larger radius would create the same type of effect for SC2 Psi Storm and its ability to truly lock down areas. In this case lower DPS vs larger radius could be something to test.
Now that I have outlined some of my musings on the DPS of different units and AOE damage, I want to write about the correlation between DPS and production. The DPS of almost all units and spells in BW is lower than that of SC2. The production time of most units is only slightly longer (5-10% on average) in BW than in SC2, but the rate at which damage is dealt in SC2 is close to 15% more than that of BW in most cases.
This is where a problem arises: Comebacks are harder since there is less time for a player to recuperate through production waves before the enemy can seal the deal, almost nullifying the defenders advantage of production vs arrival of the enemy force. The defender cannot buy much time with AOE spells to control the field either, since they do not last long and affect small areas.
This also creates a bigger incentive for a Death ball to be created, since the risk of losing a game often lies in one battle. Because of this, a player wants his force to be as strong and deadly and compacted as possible to deal the most DPS in the least amount of time, increasing his chances to win the one deciding battle.
Example 5: Army control, UI and how it affects DPS
In Starcraft 2, you can select a ton of units at once, and move them across the battlefield with but one command. The game also has smart casting, disallowing multiple spellcasters to cast the same spell simultaneously on the same target or in the targeted area, wasting valuable energy unless micro'd individually.
When I then draw a comparison to BW, where smartcasting did not exist and the maximum selection was 12 units, something interesting happens. When there are more actions required to execute certain mundane tasks efficiently, including army movement, spellcasting and control in general, there will be more time needed to execute all these actions. As a result, there is a difference in the rate at which damage is dealt per real-time second when the armies grow bigger.
In other words, if you would let 2 pro players play out the same battle with a maxed army twice in SC2, once with all the new UI and smartcast functions, and once without, we will find that the latter battle will simply take longer. So in a very indirect way, damage done per Real-time second has increased through the UI and behaviour improvements going from BW to StarCraft 2.
This unfortunate side effect probably wasn't intentional, and might explain the difference in feel when comparing fights from both games. The problem is that this increase in damage per Real Time second is hardly measurable, as it differs per player, per situation and per skill level difference.
Now couple this with a slight increase in game speed, and all the sudden no one can effectively keep up with all the damage being thrown around in large scale battles with high DPS density (Deathball), because sadly there is a physical human limit as to how many actions we can perform per second in a game such as StarCraft. As I will mention later on, this physical APM cap is already close to being reached and there shouldn't be much room left for "skill and speed improvements" for even the best/fastest players.
There is no easy way to account for this indirect increase, as we simply shouldn't want to go back to limited selection, no smartcasting etc. But hopefully we can snowball some thoughts on what could be done that would not affect the UI or fundamental AI elements.
With these examples in mind, it is time to take a look at the macro mechanics of StarCraft 2, including income rates, supply and production mechanics.
In SC2, a proper income rate is reached on relatively few bases. Mineral lines get fully saturated quite early and due to the supply cost of units, only few bases are needed to reach a maxed army of high DPS, cost (in)efficient units. Because supply is limited, it is generally not favourable to harass an enemy with more than a small amount of your army supply, since you simply do not have much to spare before the balance in a big engagement greatly favours the player with just 15 extra supply worth of units. The only exceptions are cost and supply efficient units like the marine, which explains why Terran is the race that has a bigger incentive to harass. Whenever a race has cost and supply efficient units with high dps, there is a bigger incentive to distribute them over the map for skirmishes than when a race has even higher DPS, yet supply and cost inefficient units.
When I take a closer look at the race specific macro mechanics, it seems that they all promote the high density DPS ball behaviour. We have one race (Terran) that is extremely resilient to economic harass through the use of MULES and the cost efficiency of their low to mid-tier units in general, which decreases the incentive to harass their mineral lines and promotes late game, high DPS high density engagements for their enemies.
Then we have the Zerg race, which due to the inject mechanic, can bank production and increase production rates to the extreme. This promotes the use of high DPS, high density armies in the late game to combat the armies of a Zerg, to increase the odds to survive a clash well enough to push through and deal with the remax before the whole wave of production has spawned. This in turn causes the Zerg to build spine walls and play a turtle style late-game to ensure the chance to remax to higher tiered units/renewed armies.
Once again due to the high DPS in the game, combined with the macro mechanics of SC2, time becomes the crucial factor in determining the most successful way to play: High DPS, high density maxed engagements.
On to the Protoss race, where we find that most of their units tend to be supply and cost inefficient, but extremely high on DPS and AOE in the higher tiers. This in combination with the ability to speed up crucial upgrades via chrono boost to enhance timings or economy promotes high DPS, high density engagements once again.
Due to the warp-in mechanic, Protoss also nullifies the defenders advantage of production waves vs travel time and reinforcement travel time completely. But due to the cost and food-inefficiency of the Protoss lower to mid-tier army, they cannot afford to have much of their supply strayed away from their main army.
This leaves the Protoss with two options, playing defensive to build up a high DPS, high density army, or hitting a timing attack. Harass is very limited due to cost to food ratios and the inefficiency of spreading your army apart too much.
This brings me to the last of my musings. SC2 is an extremely fast paced game, faster than BW. On top of that the DPS values have increased a bit when translated to real-time DPS compared between the two games while micro incentive diminished due to that. No one wants to micro more than the minimum as to not risk losing too much DPS time in big battles.
While SC2 still needs a lot of micro at the highest levels, it is limited not only through the high DPS, high density problem, but also the problem of the physical human limit. Many times I have read the argument that we need to give SC2 time, that pro players will “ learn to use more control groups and micro more and more”. The problem with that statement is that the top players are already close to their physical limit of what they can do within a certain timeframe in the game.
Due to the speed and DPS output, only few actions can be executed to change the outcome of a battle, while for some units and against some units, there isn’t even an incentive to micro at all. The speed and DPS weaken or nullify the effect of subsequent production waves, hindering comebacks and defenders advantage.
The Deathball issue of Starcraft 2 fails to be tackled by the FRB, Dynamic movement or Breaking up the Deathball alone. It seems that the game speed and DPS of units combined with the macro mechanics of the game play a big role in the efficiency and incentive to play a deathball style. The best players are close to maxed on Micro APM and cannot get to a level where the higher DPS and game speed would not be a handicap to the dynamics of the game.
It might be a good idea to look into the damage, macro mechanics and time values of SC2 in order to come up with a solution that gives players the ability to accomplish more with micro, buy more time and gain a better defenders advantage. This will lower the incentive to play a deathball style, and increase the incentive to skirmish and prolongs the duration of battles and the effect of subsequent production waves.
Note that all of the above is my personal, current opinion. If there are any errors in the values I used, please feel free to correct me. I am not in a position to correct grammar or rewrite (well apparently only once and it hurt!) parts since I have arm injuries, and I wrote down my musings in the past 5 days as they came. My apologies in advance if it is all over the place.
I hope that this thread will help educate people and bring progress in trying to help improve the game to be even more enjoyable, and more based on skill, epic battles and multiple skirmishes. Perhaps it will help us find solutions to stray away from 1 clash of doom in certain matchups and on certain maps/metagame situations.
I have been thinking about things that could be changed that would not affect the game engine or require a ridiculous overhaul of the game, since anything that requires said overhaul needs the full support of Blizzard. I am not sure if they even want to tinker with the game engine right now.
That being said, there are some small things. I haven't been able to fully work them out to know how they affect all areas of the game though, so all feedback is more than welcome!
1) Increase of the supply cap to 260+ Pros: -No need to recalculate supply values of all units -More supply to distribute over the current maps -Takes longer/more bases to get maxed efficiently
Cons: -Low-end computers/laptops might not be able to handle this. Blizzard wants this game to be highly accessible by many specs, including low tier. -Might increase power of end game deathball and impact comebacks negatively.
2) Increase the mining time of minerals (this is easily done in the SC2 Mapmaker, just go to the mineral values) Pros: -This makes it so that any worker past 16 on a mineral line will add way less efficiency, which makes it less effective to stay on a low base count, and more attractive to get more bases. -It will free up supply in earlier stages of the game, since you need less supply invested into economy per base.
Cons: -It will slow down the early to mid stages of the game. Blizzard wants the game to be action packed from the get go. Will they support a change that reduces the speed of the earlier stages by a bit? -Does it change the efficiency of 1-base all-ins? Not sure on this
3) Give more units the ability of moving shot, which means instant turn rates to fire (like how a marine can instantly turn and shoot, and a stalker cannot since it has a delay on turning speed). Pros: -Increases micro incentive/rewards the skill of a player in skirmishes and early to mid game.
Cons: -Will not increase micro incentive enough in large scale end game Deathball battles, core problem stays around. -Requires Blizzard to alter unit mechanics. Not sure if support can be found.
Added these to the original post, after answering the question "what would you do to facilitate positive change?"
Thank you for reading! ~Masayume
**Keep in mind that while the BW units fire faster on "Fastest settings", so do SC2 units. For example a BW Siege Tank in Siege Mode in BW fires a shot every ~ 3.75 seconds real time, and a SC2 Siege Tank in Siege Mode fires a shot every ~2.175 seconds real time. This means that while the DPS of both games when compared in game time might be similar, the DPS in Real Time will be slightly "higher" for most SC2 units and this makes the Deathball favourable. I used both game time and Real Time values in my examples to make the comparison easier.
**High DPS, High density means High DPS, and high DPS uptime in concentrated areas, also known as clumped groups of units that can put out damage at the same time, instead of parts of an army not dealing damage. High density speeds up battles.
Yeah I agree that it is known to be a fast game with marginal room for error, Heromystic. My goal of this post was to try and pinpoint some of the less obvious changes that cause this unforgivingness and speed, like the UI and how it affects DPS of the players since it is easier to get units to deal damage, and how it is hard to measure the effects of such changes since it relies on skill and command execution.
Just to make sure the most important part of the post is outlined once again, I will repost it here:
Example 5: Army control and UI and how it affects DPS
In Starcraft 2, you can select a ton of units at once, and move them across the battlefield with but one command. The game also has smart casting, disallowing multiple spellcasters to cast the same spell simultaneously on the same target or in the targeted area, wasting valuable energy unless micro'd individually.
When I then draw a comparison to BW, where smartcasting did not exist and the maximum selection was 12 units, something interesting happens. When there are more actions required to execute certain mundane tasks efficiently, including army movement, spellcasting and control in general, there will be more time needed to execute all these actions. As a result, there is a difference in the rate at which damage is dealt per real-time second when the armies grow bigger.
In other words, if you would let 2 pro players play out the same battle with a maxed army twice in SC2, once with all the new UI and smartcast functions, and once without, we will find that the latter battle will simply take longer. So in a very indirect way, damage done per Real-time second has increased through the UI and behaviour improvements going from BW to StarCraft 2.
This unfortunate side effect probably wasn't intentional, and might explain the difference in feel when comparing fights from both games. The problem is that this increase in damage per Real Time second is hardly measurable, as it differs per player, per situation and per skill level difference.
Now couple this with a slight increase in game speed, and all the sudden no one can effectively keep up with all the damage being thrown around in large scale battles with high DPS density (Deathball), because sadly there is a physical human limit as to how many actions we can perform per second in a game such as StarCraft. As I will mention later on, this physical APM cap is already close to being reached and there shouldn't be much room left for "skill and speed improvements" for even the best/fastest players.
There is no easy way to account for this indirect increase, as we simply shouldn't want to go back to limited selection, no smartcasting etc. But hopefully we can snowball some thoughts on what could be done that would not affect the UI or fundamental AI elements.
Even most pro players have no fucking clue about the game in theory, they just see what works and do it. I hope nobody reads it so i can revolutionize the scene when i get enaugh practice to actually apply it ^^
This is most definitely true. How many times have we watched a 15 min macro game where everything is decided by a battle of 2 deathballs that lasts 10 seconds with one of the players being helpess to comeback? With high density high dps, it's no wonder comebacks are so harder and battles seem one sided at the end. By the time one player reacts to pull his units, while he's trying to retreat them he gets a lot of spells that discourage retreating (force fields, fungal growth, concussive shells, and so on) and they're not firing, which means they're taking a whole ton of damage and not attacking back, which in SC2 is very important, because units are so clumped and with so much DPS.
It's one of the major flaws of SC2 player and spectator wise. But i'm not sure Blizzard employees have the humbleness of admiting such a huge error, so we'll probably be stuck with this model until a better game comes out.
I really like your post OP, the only thing i discourage is using BW as a comparison, even if it makes sense. If you wanted to get attention from any Blizz employees, which i assume you want because it would be good if they corrected what you talk about in the post, mentioning BW seems to make them go angry and tell you that BW is a great game and that you can go play it, disregarding everything you said before even if it made complete sense.
One of the better posts on the "too much damage/splash" @sc2.
But there is one thing that feels wrong for me:
The best players are close to maxed on Micro APM and cannot get to a level where the higher DPS and game speed would not be a handicap to the dynamics of the game.
I dont think so. At one day somebody will figure out how to crush deatballs just with micro. Look at Stephano ZvP for example, he does miracles and is winning midgame fights you would never expect.
It´s the same with macro look haow often great macro players like MVP, Bomber or MKP have 2-3 marines or scv´s queued up. There is still a lot of potential in sc2 mechanics.
On July 12 2012 18:25 Apolo wrote: This is most definitely true. How many times have we watched a 15 min macro game where everything is decided by a battle of 2 deathballs that lasts 10 seconds with one of the players being helpess to comeback? With high density high dps, it's no wonder comebacks are so harder and battles seem one sided at the end. By the time one player reacts to pull his units, while he's trying to retreat them he gets a lot of spells that discourage retreating (force fields, fungal growth, concussive shells, and so on) and they're not firing, which means they're taking a whole ton of damage and not attacking back, which in SC2 is very important, because units are so clumped and with so much DPS.
It's one of the major flaws of SC2 player and spectator wise. But i'm not sure Blizzard employees have the humbleness of admiting such a huge error, so we'll probably be stuck with this model until a better game comes out.
It's called WC3. Slower gameplay to increase emphasis on micro.
I really do hope that what you are saying is true USvBleakill. Perhaps an innovation in the way micro is executed against these types of armies would change things up. I do not think there is room for much speed increase though limit wise.
And Apolo, I know what you mean, but alas I already wrote it.
Btw, it's not too much dps, it's just that the people have no fucking idea how it works. It's like giving firearms to the monkeys. It's not the firearm that has too much power. It's the combination of the power and lack of understanding.
this has been discussed to death, the game has higher dps and a move splash units and mechanics that promote a deathball.
imo you cant change it, and so far ive failed to see anything even remotely mitigate it... FRB, movement, changing unit stats.. its just part of the game. We will have to see how the expansions turn out
The best players are close to maxed on Micro APM and cannot get to a level where the higher DPS and game speed would not be a handicap to the dynamics of the game.
I dont think so. At one day somebody will figure out how to crush deatballs just with micro. Look at Stephano ZvP for example, he does miracles and is winning midgame fights you would never expect.
It´s the same with macro look haow often great macro players like MVP, Bomber or MKP have 2-3 marines or scv´s queued up. There is still a lot of potential in sc2 mechanics.
Errr stephano crushes midgame mini-deathballs with sheer numbers. Then in the late game, he crushes deathballs with scarier deathballs...
Excellent article, I think with some of the changes you suggest there will be a greater defenders advantage and that would reward player skill in being able to come back from 1 bad engagement. Instead of mediocre players getting lucky in one engagement and overrunning a better player, they will have to consistently win engagements to end a game.
Wow, great post. I agree with pretty much everything here.
I think example 4 was particularly pertinent. That seemed to summarize many of the important issues and highlight how they were interconnected. It pretty much summed it up.
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.
Why? Well it is largely better for touraments to have shorter matches, since it allows more players participating it tournament for same amount of equipment, space, and support personal such as casters.
It is more convenient to play shorter high intensivity matches as a player, because your time is not quite delivered in the 30-40 minutes blocks.
Also, there is a problem of the maps. The initial maps were smaller, they had way more vulrnable naturals, and very vulrnable thirds. The game was designed for 1 base play for quite some time, not the 16CC, forge fast expand and so on.
But than the community wanted similar to BW maps, that have naturals and easier to get thinds. They hated rocks on the third expancion.
Eventually the map pool changed so that naturals are super easy to secure, which fuels the economy way faster than it was unticipated at the design stage.
Conclusion? Community needs to change their mentall setup from BW to SC2, and make maps that have more vulrnable mains and naturals, then you will see harrasment.
When naturals and thirds are super easy to secure, harrasment is not an interesting option.
The deathball is not only a problem of SC2 mechancs, but also a maps that are made by community, maps that are too secure, that have a lot of chokes that allow to defend the gready play way too easy, and punishing gready play too hard.
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.
Great article. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this. If I may suggest one thing, including your contents inside spoilers and showing only your chapter titles might attract more readers. Some readers freak out when they see a 4-screens long thesis, no matter how great the content is.
Orek I think you might be right! I can get way too enthusiastic with theorycraft sometimes, will add spoilers as soon as I get back from some errands. Cheers
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.
I strongly agree with this. BW is fucking hard, something that can be done with 60 apm in sc2 can require like 300 apm in BW, and even then it may not look as smooth as in sc2 because of things like the massively improved pathing.
Using this video as an example:
That's like 20 tanks (probably more) dying in a matter of seconds because storm is so ridiculously strong, but that's still not imbalanced because it is stupidly fucking hard to storm like that, I couldn't even explain how hard it is to someone who hasn't played BW and doesn't know how hard it is without the need for an explanation.
So, if you want the game to be more like BW you're going to have to put more restrictions on players, like in BW, you'd have to reduce the unit selection limit to maybe 24 rather than 255, remove smartcasting, and such, which is something that will never happen.
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.
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.
What you just said the OP says and what I think are completely different things. In fact, they're almost opposites.
I'm saying BW requires more APM and speed to play than Sc2, and therefore Sc2 play seems flat, and the deathball is caused since now you 1a instead of 1a2a3a and now you slap down storms just by clicking instead of using amazing hand precision to individually select tons of templar. To hit good execution in Sc2 in a huge fight is pretty easy.
He's saying stuff dies too fast, and in Sc2 you need tons of APM to play optimally compared to BW, and the game needs to be slowed down.
That's like, literally not what I'm saying at all. We are in disagreement. Entirely.
On July 12 2012 18:25 Apolo wrote: How many times have we watched a 15 min macro game where everything is decided by a battle of 2 deathballs that lasts 10 seconds with one of the players being helpess to comeback?
excluding the PL which is full of players who are pretty much brand new to the game, i haven't seen anything like this since... about November of last year. im sure you an cherry pick some games that were like it, but the vast majority of games i watch now (especially in Code S) are full of engagements, positioning, and some of them are non-stop battling for like 20 minutes, with multiple armies being destroyed multiple times, huge comebacks, lot's of harassment, etc.
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.
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?
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.
The deathball is not only a problem of SC2 mechancs, but also a maps that are made by community, maps that are too secure, that have a lot of chokes that allow to defend the gready play way too easy, and punishing gready play too hard.
Really agree with that point. In addition to the main base choke, many maps now have a secondary choke or ramp at their natural. In addition, many maps are big. It gives defenders a large advantage and makes early pressure difficult. This makes games tend to be more longer and macro oriented and easier to get to deathball.
I don't mind having long macro games and I also enjoy early all in pressures. But my fear for these longer games is that not much happens in game for a long period of time. Makes the games not the exciting to watch.
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.
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.
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.
What you just said the OP says and what I think are completely different things. In fact, they're almost opposites.
I'm saying BW requires more APM and speed to play than Sc2, and therefore Sc2 play seems flat, and the deathball is caused since now you 1a instead of 1a2a3a and now you slap down storms just by clicking instead of using amazing hand precision to individually select tons of templar. To hit good execution in Sc2 in a huge fight is pretty easy.
He's saying stuff dies too fast, and in Sc2 you need tons of APM to play optimally compared to BW, and the game needs to be slowed down.
That's like, literally not what I'm saying at all. We are in disagreement. Entirely.
It's the same thing, except in a "lower" magnitude, as you might call it. In this post you're saying that BW requires more APM to play, which is true, but the thing is, if players actually could play at an exponentially higher APM, they could play SC2 almost the same way as the do BW, because they could reduce deathball and AOE DPS to a point where it is no longer the most effective way to deploy your armies.
It's a thing of proportions. Basically, what the OP is saying, is that if the game was slower, you would WANT to distribute your armies in groups of 12 or even less (while smartcasting would probably be just as powerful though), because it would make your armies more effective. BW 1a2a3a4a would be MORE effective than 1a'ing your entire armies, thus faster players who could micro at this level would be rewarded, like in BW. Not so sure about spells though. Like I said, smartcast would probably be just as powerful, although if players could micro like the OP says, damage would be severely reduced, at least when talking about storms.
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.
Haha ok, now that i read the quote again i get what you mean Not the physical limits of our bodies, but the limits of our physical bodies would be the better way to put it.
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 4 workers 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.
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
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.
Why? Well it is largely better for touraments to have shorter matches, since it allows more players participating it tournament for same amount of equipment, space, and support personal such as casters.
It is more convenient to play shorter high intensivity matches as a player, because your time is not quite delivered in the 30-40 minutes blocks.
Also, there is a problem of the maps. The initial maps were smaller, they had way more vulrnable naturals, and very vulrnable thirds. The game was designed for 1 base play for quite some time, not the 16CC, forge fast expand and so on.
But than the community wanted similar to BW maps, that have naturals and easier to get thinds. They hated rocks on the third expancion.
Eventually the map pool changed so that naturals are super easy to secure, which fuels the economy way faster than it was unticipated at the design stage.
Conclusion? Community needs to change their mentall setup from BW to SC2, and make maps that have more vulrnable mains and naturals, then you will see harrasment.
When naturals and thirds are super easy to secure, harrasment is not an interesting option.
The deathball is not only a problem of SC2 mechancs, but also a maps that are made by community, maps that are too secure, that have a lot of chokes that allow to defend the gready play way too easy, and punishing gready play too hard.
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.
Thank you for being one of the few post that actually understands that the "Deathball" problem is the concept of keeping your army together and attacking all in one place on account of how often winning one fight with a big army wins the game.
Thanks, good read. It's a lot of common knowledge but very concisely and accurately stated with direction and purpose. It'll be good to have a thread to point to for people who continuously harp on these points but lack understanding.
I really hope the community can see how these changes could improve the game, but sometimes i feel like a lot of players might enjoy the simplified aspect of only having to worry about 1 army all balled up and 1 fight to really determine the outcome of their games. Is there any way to contact the devs or get a question about these threads into an interview? i think it'd be really cool to see what they think about it.
The deathball is not only a problem of SC2 mechancs, but also a maps that are made by community, maps that are too secure, that have a lot of chokes that allow to defend the gready play way too easy, and punishing gready play too hard.
Really agree with that point. In addition to the main base choke, many maps now have a secondary choke or ramp at their natural. In addition, many maps are big. It gives defenders a large advantage and makes early pressure difficult. This makes games tend to be more longer and macro oriented and easier to get to deathball.
I don't mind having long macro games and I also enjoy early all in pressures. But my fear for these longer games is that not much happens in game for a long period of time. Makes the games not the exciting to watch.
I agree a bit with this, but at the same time the toss race is so weak in the early game defensively that they must either invest in an all-in, mass tech, or sentries to defend. And sentries are the cheapest option for the greedy mineral based play. So those chokes are necessary, especially vs zerg, otherwise its basically some guy casting (MTG) Overrun on you.
Also, great post . Loved reading it. It almost makes me want to experiment with speed settings as some guys at the end were saying :D
One thing I havent found (should be in chapter #5) in the list is the "dps per attack area". Due to the "improved" movement AI and unlimited unit selection the very tight ball of units is made possible ... even on the move. This brings a maximum amount of units into range of a potential target and thus increases the "incoming dps" to rathre ludicrous amounts. For air units this is especially deadly since many of them havent been adjusted to take this increase of damage into account and attacking units can stand right below them ... which brings more in range compared to ground units.
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.
I'm pretty sure ya'lls Midi-chlorian count is just simply too low. You need to be more like Anakin.
Seriously though. I really like this thread and discussion. I think OP hit everything spot on. Bottom line though it's basically an impossible uphill battle.
As far as APM limits though, I think that one is a bit misleading. Yes some people are reaching the apex of APM. But even in major battles I still see pro players spam where they want to a move, or spam where they want to move when 1 click will do exactly the same thing. I still see weak/low energy spell casters not being pulled back, instead they are basically sacrificed. You do a good job of linking every point/thought together. So for example if you don't pull back those 2 infestors, that's like 4 less fungals for the next battle. And it just compounds the longer the game goes. Don't forget about the resources that now have to be used for another infestor instead of possibly being made into a brood lord or whatever else would be more valuable.
On July 16 2012 12:56 roronoe wrote: This deserves more attention, there's a lot of well thought out points.
Yeah, problem is that it's so well thought out and well presented that there's nothing to discuss on. Few people can add more to it other than just saying "Awesome, I think so too".
4 pages for a thread like this is kind of sad though.
On July 16 2012 12:56 roronoe wrote: This deserves more attention, there's a lot of well thought out points.
Yeah, problem is that it's so well thought out and well presented that there's nothing to discuss on. Few people can add more to it other than just saying "Awesome, I think so too".
4 pages for a thread like this is kind of sad though.
At the end of the article should be "TLDR: Protoss is OP" And we would be at 100 page now.
So since according to OP, since DPS is perhaps optimized to such a degree by a series of supporting aspects of the game that games in general are played on a wire.
Would a potential solution be developing abilities that effect and mediate DPS in a small area. Such that while the deathball would be optimal under normal circumstances, a player may opt to spread his units out because the decrease in DPS from one of these concentrated abilities would actually be lower then forcing a spread.
I was thinking of abilities akin to EMP, except with a much smaller radius and that in some form effects DPS output without fully locking down or trapping units. Like a small pocket where unit inside fire at 50% the normal rate or something. I would suggest the ability be available to research relatively early on relatively to the unique attributes of each race.
Even if the opponent spreads out the attacker with the ability could selectively target specfic groups depending on the key aspects of the enemies counter composition.
I want to give props to a thought-provoking post. I have some issues with the conclusion. Saying that an increase in defender's advantage decreases the proficiency of the deathball doesn't make any sense. An increase in defender's advantage will decrease the efficiency of smaller engagements and again promote the deathball style, just as other's have pointed out that maps with well defended chokes and expansions promote deathballs.
The whole idea about too much damage too quickly decreases the importance of micro makes perfect sense and the differences between SC2 and BW are very clear on this especially with how well you laid out the mechanics. The problem is that just as you admit in SC2 as in BW there is a cap to the number of actions that can be done in any given set of time. Both games share this reality. But that reality is handled differently between games. The ease of macro mechanics and unit control means in SC2 more actions or thoughts are spent on macro decisions than in BW. I think the main problem with the game is that the "enhanced speed" of SC2 doesn't scale well with the maps the way BW does with its maps. This is something that has been stated and rehashed over and over by many people and one of the biggest criticisms about the game since beta. The maps have gotten better to a small degree (marketing), but they just don't scale well with the game. They need to be a lot bigger and there needs to be less concentration of resources so that the speed and more macro-focused aspects of the game create more opportunities for strategy and reasoning skills that go way beyond physical/mechanical skill. And therein lies the marketing challenge for Blizzard because to maximize revenues for the game they want to attract the interest of as many people as possible in the early stages so they can make as much money as possible. There isn't an incentive to produce a game with the greatest opportunity for strategy until the game has been sold and casual sales are no longer a factor and the real money is made from the hardcore and competitive scene. Just like with a game like poker, you're going to generate a larger interest in a game when a random player has a decent chance to beat someone much better than them with randomness. Whereas in a game like chess casual players are going to be turned off by the fact that they have no chance of even getting lucky and winning a game and continuing their interest as a result. The flaws of SC2 when you compare to BW when it comes to strategy are actually strengths when you're talking about producing something you have to sell to a large audience.
I think we really need to break down the difference between BW and SC2 more and realize that most of the reasons that things don't function the same is mostly (in my opinion) due to the better AI, unit size, and faster DPS (lets exclude the units like marauder, colossus, and roach. I'm highly against these three units and think if they were removed the game would function better).
example of DPS = TvP - Stalkers vs Dragoons, BW Zealots vs SC2 zealots, Vultures vs Hellions, and BW tanks vs SC2 tanks. Dragoons had longer range and slower DPS. Siege tanks had longer range and slower dps as well. Zealots had no charge, but speed so there was obviously more time to get to the tanks (not to mention spidermines). Vultures instead of hellions. This made things much different because the rate at which damage was dealt was alot less constant. This is somewhat the reason for quick battles in TvP.
That article pretty much explains it all, but our units move in a ball. Which is rather.....non brood warish.
Unit Size - Let's face it. Early/mid game units are puny. Marine is smaller, zergling is MUCH smaller, zealot as well, and it trends with the rest of the units. In combination with the Death Ball AI it is, splash damage is a nightmare. Reaver, SC1 siege tanks, and defiler would be real hell in this game.
Very good and well written article, agree with many points However, the making the defender's advantage better may just hurt zerg, who are the least cost effective when it comes to attacking a greedy toss/terran's entrenched position. I think the solution would be slowing it all down, so you are ABLE to effectively micro 3 drops at once, and perhaps decrease dmg abit.
I completely agree with the OP so props for a well written and thought out post. I too don't think it would be productive for blizzard to make sc2 into bw, while we all love bw, sc2 is its own game and it deserves it's own greatness.
HOWEVER i don't think its there yet, HOTS and LOTV have still to come out, so there is alot of waiting for just a finished product . Now on to the response to the OP, I loved the analysis of the "high density dps" groups, honestly i'm surprised more people haven't taken the mathematical approach to the deathball problem. hell one could even go further and analyze the things like the gradient of the dps/density function in a particular engagement **maybe i'll do that one day**
and the proposal of "less dps+slower gameplay+other smaller factors" could really work to change the game in a positive way. But from a game perspective, what can we expect blizzard to do? The discussion so far has tried to understand the key elements of dps/time in bw; but if sc2 is going to be its own game, then it needs to find its own different solution.
I'm going to use a metaphor for this next bit; in chess, each type of piece has its own type of movement, one piece has them all (figuratively) the queen. however, at the start of the game the queen is "landlocked" for lack of a better term, and cant really control the board. Tying this into modern sc2, the deathball is a "queen" it has a combination of high dps/high reward units that can kill almost anything. Games in chess would be really boring if the only things that happened were 2 queens smashing together, thankfully there are units that can evade queens, like the knight.
The knight is possibly the most important unit in chess, it has 2 unique abilities, it can jump, and it moves in a non-linear fashion. a good player can evade a queen all day with a knight, and simultaneously threaten the king (check). The knight in chess represents either a unit or a mechanism that allows for this sort of play, in sc2 the game needs more "knights"
Day[9] once explained this concept using the frisbee as his model; the point i'm trying to get across is that logically sc2 will need an effective way to encourage different forms of play besides deathballing. It appears that in HOTS dustin browder (i really dislike him) may have had an epiphany and started trying to include units to make this sort of play possible.
what i'd like to see from the community though is alittle theorycrafting, what do you guys think would be an effective way of encouraging alternative play? to through a few examples: 1) make the game more complicated 2) more units (like way more, thus subsequent complication) 3) different maps 4) give existing units more evasive qualities (i know that was mentioned earlier, so props to that guy, honestly tho what would the game look like if there were more viable air units? or if more units could attack burrowed?) or what about physical evasion, allowing certain units to "dodge" attacks (this is a micro incentive to gain effectiveness) 5) increased overall unit efficiency 6) An ability/unit that can control the speed of other units, what if the widow mine was cloaked even when attached, and just slowed all enemy units in an area; or a unit/ability similar to statsis? also in the same category: confusion effects, what if a spell could cause a zergling pack to lose its "good" pathing, and have terrible terrible pathing? 7) more terrain options, where the fog of war limited vision in different ways than it does now
these are just a few ideas i had on the subject, naturally though i wouldn't want the game to become more similar to wc3 or other hero based games, but i think for the game to gain back some of its brilliant strategic flair, while still being its own game, It needs to open up and become a more diverse as a whole.
I have been thinking about things that could be changed that would not affect the game engine or require a ridiculous overhaul of the game, since anything that requires said overhaul needs the full support of Blizzard. I am not sure if they even want to tinker with the game engine right now.
That being said, there are some small things. I haven't been able to fully work them out to know how they affect all areas of the game though, so all feedback is more than welcome!
1) Increase of the supply cap to 260+ Pros: -No need to recalculate supply values of all units -More supply to distribute over the current maps -Takes longer/more bases to get maxed efficiently
Cons: -Low-end computers/laptops might not be able to handle this. Blizzard wants this game to be highly accessible by many specs, including low tier. -Might increase power of end game deathball and impact comebacks negatively.
2) Increase the mining time of minerals (this is easily done in the SC2 Mapmaker, just go to the mineral values) Pros: -This makes it so that any worker past 16 on a mineral line will add way less efficiency, which makes it less effective to stay on a low base count, and more attractive to get more bases. -It will free up supply in earlier stages of the game, since you need less supply invested into economy per base.
Cons: -It will slow down the early to mid stages of the game. Blizzard wants the game to be action packed from the get go. Will they support a change that reduces the speed of the earlier stages by a bit? -Does it change the efficiency of 1-base all-ins? Not sure on this
3) Give more units the ability of moving shot, which means instant turn rates to fire (like how a marine can instantly turn and shoot, and a stalker cannot since it has a delay on turning speed). Pros: -Increases micro incentive/rewards the skill of a player in skirmishes and early to mid game.
Cons: -Will not increase micro incentive enough in large scale end game Deathball battles, core problem stays around. -Requires Blizzard to alter unit mechanics. Not sure if support can be found.
I will add these to the original post, now that I have answered your question.
As I said in the "Cons" section of the "possible" solution:
-Might increase power of end game deathball and impact comebacks negatively.
It will also take more of an economic investment to get to that stage though. In the case of Zerg, your bank needs to be significantly larger too. I don't know how much of an offset that would be. Therefore I state that I have not been fully able to work out the impact that these possible changes could have on the game as a whole.
I do see where you are coming from, maybe my explanation at the Cons section is too ambiguous or unclear.
If the mining speed is decreased, the value of MULES will also decrease accordingly. Of course the MULE mining rate would have to be changed proportionally to the difference in mining speed and income of a regular worker to offset an upset in income balance.
I like your feedback, this will help create a bigger and better list of pros and cons later on after more discussion in the thread. Cheers!
How do you guys feel about the HoTS units being able to detract from the deathballing? While i'm glad the blizz devs are noticing its not optimal it seems to me units like the widow mine are cool and everything but easily stomped out by say a deathball with a detector, since they all involve very good range. At that point the terran has wasted resource/supply/build time on making those, weakening his 'deathball' group.
Other than forcing tanks to unsiege so the deathball can walk in, much like broodlords do for zerg, how is the tempest taking away all that much from the protoss deathball? It could also just force you to smash into a ball of protoss.
I like that protoss are getting a harass unit(oracle or w/e) but the tempest just stinks as i feel like when i play TvP i already have to build vikings and i hate them b/c they are useless on the ground and waste minerals and supply and too slow to effectively harass(transform time is painfully punished as well, straight up, straight down) and can't leave the safety of the main army so they dont really save marines from colossus as much as you would think, 0 armor but are armored type thus incurring a penalty. AKA build more vikings for HOTS, yay?
One thing i don't see ever being helped is the Nueral Parasite and the new pull ability. If they are too crappy (rangewise) no one will use them. But if they are too good, certain units will no longer be built, and for it to be effective, don't you have to pull it into your own deathball?
If the resource rates and DPS were changed would much of this matter less? or is unit design such as the colossus being one of the worst offenders in DPS per APM most of the problem, wouldnt it have to be reworked significantly if you dropped some of its nutso DPS? Stim marine groups vs. buildings is also laughable situation but that falls under DPS change i suppose. Basically just adding units to this game i feel like won't fix a thing in terms of deathballing strength and building said units will only die embarrassingly fast b/c they will be spreading their power over the map while a giant ball of units runs around crushing all of it but the blizz devs will never change things that already exist like pathing or bad unit design.
Once again i have to say the OP is very well put together and you have nailed just about all the things everyone has been talking about for a long time, its only now that we can start to see its a combination of elements that produce the less than optimal levels of enjoyment that could be had in a starcraft game.
Excellent post. I recently watched Fantasy play vs Flash and that was such a tactical slug fest with small battles going on all over the place in order to push their advantage. In sc2 it's always just getting that one favorable engagement. With the exception of some MMA TvZ gameplay I feel that SC2 is just clashing massive armies with long build up times. I never really thought about why this would be, but the higher DPS makes a lot of sense. It's sad that this will go mostly ignored by Blizzard, because I think HotS is not going to make gameplay better. They would do well to read this and experiment a little.
I agree especially with increase mining time on minerals. I really think this is something that should be tried by Blizzard.
Would love to see people expanding more aggressively and spend more time evenly spreading out their workers between bases. And a somewhat slowed down early/midgame would in my opinion allow for more tricksy/cute play and diverse strategies without as much risk of instantly being overrun.
I didn't recognize the DPS element before you brought it up though. It's interesting as well. SC2 has always felt a bit more fast paced, but could never put down my finger as to why. I guess it's a combination of the macro mechanics, income rates and DPS.
not the best solutions, either the game would need to be completely rebalanced, or it would just increase the issues you are trying to fight. Also not agreeing with the best players are maxed on their possibilities. I think most are pretty lazy when it comes to using game mechanics that allow you to do things easier. You have more to think on how to move the units, but it saves tons of apm for other things.
Imo the AI is too efficient (unless it is the thors, or projectile units) if you let it do what it wants, but lings are probably the best example of how to make the ai work against you, seen all the time fighting marines. I think going down one point in gamespeed would solve most issues, but I can understand no one wants to admit that Sc2 is too hard on fastest. But sc2 is widely unexplored still when it comes to how to use units effective in terms of apm cost. Marines are a good example of a unit that people waste tons of apm with needlessly. So I think the issue will fix over time when people are better with the game. It is after all easier to learn and harder to master then its predecessor. (Just my personal opinion from playing both games)
The most disappointing thing about all of this is that i'm pretty sure the devs did this on purpose. The whole speeded up aspect of SC2 wasn't an accident. Faster games were supposed to make people enjoy the game more with more action(that doesn't happen) as well as get more tournaments and more players into tournaments into shorter time spans. The problem with that is that this is not Street Fighter II. Its supposed to be a strategy game but now that its so sped up its destroyed any strategy that could be had and is just more of a mechanical do this as fast as you can and you will win. Not saying there isn't supposed to be mechanics or that BW didn't have that b/c it did, controlling the army is the fun part and comebacks are fun too, but in sc2 that stuff is not important.
So the fact that they want the game this way and more than likely wont be able to ever make it better with this approach means they will have to either hide the fact they were wrong or just admit that they were wrong and make drastic changes. While an expansion is the best time for stuff like this the real question is does the SC2 dev team even agree that the game is becoming stale and the whole speeded up aspect just plain sucks since all that happens now is that the best players are just spending tons of time massing up and then very little time fighting. The speeded up economy is one of the worst things they couldve done IMO. It makes comebacks harder, punishes attackers more, makes macro more important than micro and the micro is waaaay more fun to play and watch. When everything dies fast, there is less micro(the DPS problem).
Somehow positional advantages make BW a better game, it somehow doesn't suffer from the tarded deathball and actually has comebacks. The Warp in for protoss is cool and everything but if people would honestly look at it, they would see that it makes comebacks impossible in almost all situations its used in. The siege tank and lurker were awesome for this. So, the MU thats most praised as being the most interesting and fun, guess what? TvZ the siege tank is good in. The most boring MU, the most predictable, the most complained about, TvP. The siege tank is terrible in. (Not including Mirror MU's but you get the point).
The macro mechanics are also very undesirable and things like chrono boosting out probes annoys the heck out of me, zerg players have complained about larvae inject since day one and everyone has complained about MULES non-stop. I know the reason they added the macro abilities b/c they see the difference between pro's and noobs is partially managing your workers, but really who cares? Should that be the difference? I guess there has to be something difficult to do, not missing chrono's inject's or mule's. So i guess those are necessary evils but they shouldn't have to speed up mining so much (more $$$ or more workers=$$$). Somehow though, they are not even in terms of difficulty.
Sadly, if none of this is addressed i truly believe SC2 will die.
EPT
