monk: Just talked to Dustin and did an interview. There's a mistake in this translation. He said in the test map, Psionic units will be unaffected by Fungal, not Neural. Also, they're looking into a lot of changes for the infestor, including removing Neural entirely in HotS.

[F_]aths

Germany3947 Posts

November 20 2012 19:25 GMT

#561

On November 21 2012 00:07 shivver wrote:
This guy is so clueless.. I'm beyond giving up hope.

Do you think that now we consider you a really tough guy, or at least someone how is knowledgeable about SC2?

Account252508

3454 Posts

November 20 2012 22:25 GMT

#562

--- Nuked ---

Dontkillme

Korea (South)806 Posts

November 21 2012 02:43 GMT

#563

The problem seems like the seeker missile is way too slow to be efficient to anything but the Brood lords or maybe even carriers.

shangul

Switzerland27 Posts

November 24 2012 13:59 GMT

#564

I have a great Idea for Balancing the game better, and making the games more fun to play.
What I think is the biggest problem is the clustering up of Units. Why don't they design the units in a way that they can't cluster up that much. No more ball of death. no more one battle decides the hole game.
It would also be more similar to BW.
what do you guys think?

Account252508

3454 Posts

November 24 2012 15:03 GMT

#565

--- Nuked ---

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

November 24 2012 16:52 GMT

#566

On November 25 2012 00:03 monkybone wrote:

Show nested quote +

They have commented on this. Clustering up units has it's place, and the game is also balanced around this. For example, marines and marauders need to be able to cluster up like they do to deal the damage they need while kiting zealots. Or else they just wouldn't stand a chance. Splitting units up is a skill, but most importantly a choice. If the units didn't cluster, it would remove the benefit and dynamic of clustered units. With clustering, a skilled player can take advantage of both spread out and clustered units in different situations.

It's also kind of awkward to call this an idea of yours considering how it has been heavily debated since the beginnings of sc2 beta.

This is a stupid argumentation. If the Zerglings run up to the Marines in a less dense pack then you dont need as high a concentration of Marines to deal with them ... simple math and doesnt require much imagination.

Clumping is TERRIBLE, because ...
1. The dps of the pack increases differently for different units. + Show Spoiler +

Stalkers are much larger than Marines and thus you can stack more Marines in the same space and consequently their dps per area increases more than the much more expensive Protoss units even though they both start at roughly the same dps. Marines are also a lot cheaper than Stalkers and these "expensive high tech units" are only worth it due to Blink and Forcefield.

2. Big clumps of tight units put "max dps" in the foreground and this prevents micro. Cutesy tricks never work when faced with brute force. + Show Spoiler +

You know that you have seen micro, when you see 2 Zerglings battling 2 Zerglings and one of the players keeps both of his Zerglings alive. Splitting Marines isnt really micro, because it requires far less precision and there are too many units involved anyways.

3. The tight clumps of units are the "core definition" of the deathball and this is considered to be terrible by most people.

4. The balance of two groups of units shifts with the number of units involved. A single Zealot can chase two Marines around for some time, BUT a huge clump of 40 Marines would probably win against 20 Zealots, because they can eliminate some of the Zealots before they even get to the Marines. This "critical dps" is part of the reason why big units like the Carrier or Battlecruiser are not really viable and it even works for Siege Tanks, who melt much too fast when faced with a mediocre batch of Marines.

Sadly diehard Blizzard fanboys will respond to this argumentation with either of "It isnt clear enough" OR the ever popular "you arent smart enough, because you dont work at Blizzard ... trust in Blizzard" line.

Account252508

3454 Posts

November 24 2012 17:34 GMT

#567

--- Nuked ---

Lokian

United States699 Posts

November 24 2012 18:04 GMT

#568

Clumping is not a problem because you can easily clump units by clicking very fast near the ball and most of the time its beneficial to casual players. They will cluster up. The only way is to make units like broodwar, but it does not look good because units look like retards trying to scoot up but stops every millisecond.

When you select a large area full of units, you take the value of the most left/right/top/bottom units and make a box. You take the center of the box and that would act similar to one unit. When you click a move, the direction from the center to the pointer would be the direction the group will move toward, making the entire group move in one direction that is not clustered. You will have units that will not arrive at the destination if you want the group to not cluster, which is just bad mechanics. So they need to reach their destination, which will ultimately make them cluster anyways. It's not that different. The only difference broodwar has is that unit pathing does not consider other units, so when they have the same path as another unit, they will just stop behind another unit, making a scooting effect you see.

It's been discussed that broodwar pathfinding is bad for how the game looks. Units look stupid, and its just hard to move from point a to point b. Using the sc2 pathfinding but keep armies unclustered while on move doesn't make a difference because most of the time, you want to be in ball formation. it's the default. I do wish they would explore the unclustered movement though. Because with this, players actually have a choice to stay spread or not.

Also another point is that sc2 is needed to engage casual gamers and most ball formation is beneficial for casual players because deathballs are efficient. once you get in higher level games, you need to spread you units, and like broodwar, you can have multiple groups to do that. Anyways, actually typing this and thinking about it, they should explore the unclustered movement mechanic.

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

November 24 2012 18:37 GMT

#569

On November 25 2012 02:34 monkybone wrote:
Stupid argumentation from diehard blizzard fanboys? You can't argue like this. Your post is just your opinion on the matter anyway, which honestly doesn't appear very enlightened.

Try to be less biased and people might just take you seriously next time.

Explain why my arguments are bad or off the mark.

1.
Do Stalkers have the same size as Marines? Yes/No
If they have not and are bigger as I claim, do Marines have a higher "dps per area"? Yes/No
If the "dps per area" increases in different speed, does this make balancing these units easier or harder? easier/harder

2.
Is the "kill rate" higher with a bigger bunch of units involved? Yes/No
Does it make sense to build a Carrier with tiny Interceptors when you know that you are facing a big bunch of Marines or Hydras which will kill the Interceptors in no time? Yes/No
If the previous question is answered with NO, would it change anything if they added "Nony's Carrier micro"? Yes/No
How often do you see/use target-firing in a BIG battle with lots of units? often/rarely/never
Is it effective to do "cutesy positional micro" when your army is faced with a big group of units? Yes/No

Micro is the abiltiy of better players to use their skill to win, but the larger the clumps are the less there is room for micro. More microability is good ... unless you choose to disagree of course.

3.
Do you like the deathball? Yes/No
Would you like to have alternative ways to fight than keeping all your units in one big clump? Yes/No
If YES, then how do you think its going to happen since the deathball is the most efficient way to fight?

4.
Have you ever heard the term "critical number" by casters? Yes/No
How often? Pretty regularly/once in a while/rarely
Do you understand what "critical number" means and what the implications are? Yes/No
Explain to me why Battlecruisers and Carriers are not efficient please and how to fix them.

Honestly you are not arguing with the points I made and focus on my mentioning "Blizzard fanboys" while choosing the "It isnt clear enough" answer to dismiss my points. I hope the Q&A form in small steps is easier to understand ...

On November 25 2012 03:04 Lokian wrote:
It's been discussed that broodwar pathfinding is bad for how the game looks. Units look stupid, and its just hard to move from point a to point b. Using the sc2 pathfinding but keep armies unclustered while on move doesn't make a difference because most of the time, you want to be in ball formation. it's the default. I do wish they would explore the unclustered movement though. Because with this, players actually have a choice to stay spread or not.

Also another point is that sc2 is needed to engage casual gamers and most ball formation is beneficial for casual players because deathballs are efficient. once you get in higher level games, you need to spread you units, and like broodwar, you can have multiple groups to do that. Anyways, actually typing this and thinking about it, they should explore the unclustered movement mechanic.

Original Broodwar pathing wasnt really perfect, BUT no one in their right mind wants to change the pathing in SC2 into that type. Claiming this is simply false.

The deathball is BAD for casual gamers, because they are unable to cope with such a huge number of units on one button. Easiest example is Banelings (EASY to use in one big group) against Marines (HARD to use if faced by Banelings rolling in); MarineKing can split his units and survive, but "Joe Casual" cant. It is better for the casual to be limited to 12 units per control group JUST AS THE OPPONENT. Anything else is just a misconception and somewhat stupid "everything new must be better" propaganda.