|
On November 30 2012 08:11 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Of course the removal of smart casting from certain abilities causes change in balance. That was one of the core points in the OP: because of smart casting, these powerful AoE spells have had to be nerfed significantly to compensate. If smart casting was removed from them, then we'd be looking at re-buffing them to their former strength (or whatever balance numbers make sense). In terms of defining "better", I think the difference has already been clarified, but let's summarize it here: The relationship between spell strength and landing perfect spells is an intertwined one. With smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, anyone can cast perfect spells (e.g. Jangbi-level) with minimal effort. As a result, these spells have had to be nerfed accordingly. These necessary nerfs also mean that you need perfect casting for these spells to have the kind of impact necessary to make them useful (e.g. missed FFs = GG yo). It also makes it very hard for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player in this area. Without smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, it becomes very hard to get a perfect result. Consequently, the spells can be more powerful because most people won't have 100% efficiency. It also means you don't need perfect casting, because the damage you do manage to inflict will still generally be sufficient enough thanks to the increased strength. This also opens a huge opportunity for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player, as their spell casting will be much more efficient. What the OP (and myself) consider "better" is the one that allows for a greater range of skill. In this case, it would be the latter of the two. Now, targeting some specific quotes: On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up? Yes. It's still an incredibly valuable spell in TvP regardless. As for ghosts vs. casters in general, against a clumped group of casters you might want to EMP, while against a split up number of them, snipe would be more useful. It's situational, but the ghost has answers to both. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)? Blizzard never designed the game for Zerg to mass infestors. This style of play is exactly why Blizz is looking to nerf fungal growth -- something they might not have to look at if they instead just removed smart casting from the ability. The best of the best Zergs might still be able to get a similar result that any random ladder player can currently get today, but for most people the ability would be appropriately "nerfed" without actually having to muck with the balance numbers and/or design. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them? What about them? Graviton beam is fine as a smart cast ability. I don't think single-target abilities should lack smart casting -- it'd be too much to try and select a single caster then try and select a single target as well. There should be a good balance between precise and imprecise selection, I think. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)? This question is a clear lack of understanding of the game. Siege tanks don't do as much damage because of some changes to the AI. In Brood War, siege tanks would waste their shots on units that were already killed by another tank; that doesn't happen in SC2, making tank damage much more efficient. Due to increased efficiency, the damage had to be reduced. Sound similar to what I was just saying regarding AoE spells? If you reduce the ease of efficiency with AoE spells, then their strength can very well be returned to BW levels (theoretically). Browder on why they can't remove tank overkill: "To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots." Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change? Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. I bring them up because they are, by their very nature, rebalancing everything. Blizzard has also mentioned that they'll be looking at WoL units for the sake of redesigning/rebalancing them to be better during the HotS beta. And, finally, in terms of the community convincing Blizzard to implement changes through discussion and implementation, look no further than the new unbuildable rocks/debris in HotS. They're the result of the community discussing the ramp block strategy (namely, how to get rid of it because it's stupid) and implementing a band-aid solution in the form of neutral supply depots. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so. A much more powerful and skill-oriented spell casting experience, which opens opportunities to have much cooler/more powerful spells and a better professional scene where top level players have another outlet to differentiate themselves from the pack. I think that's a pretty good reason. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet? This is simple: without addressing how AoE spells work in SC2, even if you add new units and spells, they'll still be restricted from a balance standpoint in terms of what they can do. It really hinders the "cool"-factor that spells could have, as well as the professional scene to a lesser degree. At the end of the day, it's all about wanting SC2 to be the most awesome game it can be. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll keep it high level so this doesn't degenerate into a dozen different discussions (only some of which would really be on topic - all the questions you answered really only meant to indicate that there were a lot of things to consider though, whcih I hope you'll agree on). The larger point I was making is this: the team designing SC2 does not have infinite time to change this game, so while I agree that we want the skill cap to be higher (we want something hard enough to do yet powerful enough when done right - rivalling some of the old BW micro skills), I disagree that making old abilities initiate differently is the best focus of their time. If we're optimizing not the "awesomeness" of each bit of SC2 without regard to time, but instead the "awesomeness" which can be added per unit of time, I think this statement is rather obvious. Why so? If we can agree that adding new things can have the same effect on metagame considerations (which can easily be shown by noting that you can add more powerful units without smartcasting alongside less powerful units without it as two separate units), it's simply a choice of "do I get to see something new?" vs. "do I get to see the same thing I've been seeing, but know that it was harder to do". Either way, the balance testing needs to be done. Either way, the metagame changes. If we make something new versus remaking something old, we do a number of things:
1. You have to add something every expansion - why not add things you know are popular (and not warhounds or replicants which you later will have to pretend you didn't waste resources on)?
2. By raising the skill cap using something new, we don't remove unit functionalities some players have come to like (remember how b.net looks after any unit gets nerfed? or how well removing any of the WoL units went?).
3. When you change something old, it becomes difficult to convince anyone (let alone the people who made the original) that yours is better. This is a great post with well-thought-out reasoning, and yet look at all the people posting who are unconvinced. Now look at all the people who loved Barrin's FRB thread - and still Blizzard isn't budging an inch. Get support for a new idea though (while admittedly harder, I think more people would look at HotS 'my new stuff' threads if they were created by MorroW instead of joblo7), and the bar is substantially lower. Remember Oracle dispel from a HotS patch ago? Grubby's idea. Why? They needed to try something new, and people like Grubby.
4. Remember when you first saw HotS? You thought a lot of it sounded awesome compared to WoL right? That's because it was new. New stuff is fun.
Yes, these are all practical considerations. I have no theoretical reasoning that says you're not right about removing smartcasting being a theoretically better move for some casters (I think you are). But I don't see it happening, and there are ways of accomplishing this same goal with a higher likelihood of success - so I don't see why one wouldn't do that, except that it involves being a bit more imaginative approach (or collaborative - you could, for instance, crowdsource ideas and use that as a way of starting out your idea with a lot of support off the bat) .
One sidenote: though there are many reasons siege tank damage was lowered from BW, one which many have stated (including LaLush in a post so old I hope I don't have to find it) is that the increased mineral gain from being on a small number of bases makes area controlling spells and abilities (like storm, siege tanks, and lurkers) better. That was what I was referring to.
|
I kinda get the feeling that the argument that BW style non-smartcasting might be good for the game is pretty believable, but the argument that you'd actually want to implement it now, like it was back then, is going to fall flat, no matter what kind of mental hoops you're putting yourself through to frame it.
It's just bad video game design. People sometimes get excited about glitchy behaviour in video games across all genres that can be exploited, and sometimes these behaviours get assimilated into the game proper, like street fighter's frame cancel combos, and be a good thing. The problem here is that you're trying to add in something that's flatly less intuitive.
Despite iamcaustic, I don't think the concerns I've inexpertly raised are all that complicated. I'm getting the feeling that we're redefining the objective here when it comes to deciding what's intuitive. Come up with better ways to balance the spells other than punishing people with an in-game effect they couldn't possibly have wanted to happen, no matter the state of the match.
It wasn't a personal insult, it was a statement that it had become impossible to treat your argument as something legitimate, for reasons that should have been fairly obvious. It's also not cool to make up things to try and justify your reprehensible response. There's simply no point in continuing when every response I could make would have "that's completely ridiculous" in it.
Listen, the line that got you up in arms had a subjoined "Wholly Nonsensical!". Why can't I give an illustrative counterexample to other peoples' absurdity when I see it?
|
I posted this before (but no one really commented yet):
As someone who watched BW and even WC3 a lot, SC2 is a somewhat problematic game compared to the two.
I'm not a "BW elitist" but some things done in BW were done right. In WC3 (which is probably an easier game to play than SC2), a lot of things were done right compared to SC2. And WC3 had smart casting, formation movement (you can make it so the fastest unit in your control group is slowed down to the slowest, to make microing easier), MBS, etc... it wasn't a "fighting the interface" game but yet WC3 has less problems than SC2.
WC3 and BW (IMO) are much better than SC2. SC2 has all sorts of problems right now. Throwing out ideas on how to potentially fix it is a good thing. We definitely want SC2 to succeed. Right now, SC2 has design problems and a lot of problems that both BW and WarCraft III did better (and again, WC3 wasn't a "fighting the interface game"... WC3 has everything SC2 has besides unlimited unit selection).
So it's not me (or others) wanting SC2 to be like BW (or wanting SC2 to be WC3).
Also I don't think that removing smart casting would make battles more of a "knife's edge". Currently, battles are a knife's edge because mainly of positioning and how easy it is to be in the wrong position and how spell casters can change everything all in an instant (force fields and fungal for example).
Removing smart casting or going the WC3 route of not making OMG WTF OP would lessen the "knife's edge" effect and make games more gradual instead of you make 1 mistake you lose and you can't come back from the game.
Edit - Of course I'm not saying removing smart casting automatically fixers everything. As I said earlier, positioning (being out of position) or deathball syndrome (basically, how splitting your army is really discouraged in the game, thus making being out of position even more of a threat) is a detrimental to the game.
Some things:
1. Since being out of position (which unlike both WC3 and BW) is such a huge factor in whether you win or lose games (unlike both BW and WC3, splitting up your army for long periods of time is discouraged), something has to be done with that.
2. Deathball syndrome - Splitting up your army means that if you're hit by a deathball, your split up army loses (due to how easy it is to mass a death ball, unlike both BW and WC3).
3. Things die a lot faster (thanks to deathball syndrome, in BW the armies sort of came in waves after wave which meant that your army died gradually instead of all at once... in WC3, units have a large enough health that it takes like a minute for any unit to die). Also, take note units actually do more damage (even outside of deathballs) in SC2 than BW. Hydralisks for example do a ton of damage in SC2 compared to BW. Marauders (didn't exist in BW) also did a ton of damage. The only thing that did more damage in BW are spell casters (which is countered by BW's mechanics), possibly Marines (stim doubled the attack rate instead of just increasing it by 50%) and maybe Carriers.
4. Spells that root (fungal) or impede movement (forcefield) in general heightens the above two negative issues. If this was WC3 (units died slowly) or if this was BW (units weren't all in a clump and splitting up your army was encouraged in most match ups), then fungal or force field wouldn't be as much of a problem.
In fact, Stasis Field is probably a more powerful and stronger ability than both Forcefield and Fungal combined (if it was in the game, you could easily split your opponent's army in half) but yet due to BW's overall gameplay, it wasn't OP.
Not that I'm saying SC2 isn't a great game but that SC2 could have the potential to be a better game. It doesn't have to be like BW or WC3 but if you look at those games, I'd much rather everything not be a "knife's edge" or you mess up once, you lose and can't come back."
tl;dr - The problem isn't the easy interface or whatever exactly. It's the fact that the game is way too much of a knife's edge where you make one mistake or get caught out of position one time, you can lose the entire game.
If SC2 games didn't revolve around losing "entire" armies in seconds (in BW "and" WC3, it was all gradual), then spells like fungal, etc wouldn't be a problem.
On November 23 2012 13:36 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 12:56 TheFish7 wrote:
Hatcheries (larva) have smart-casting now as well. I'm wondering if the OP would advocate getting rid of that as well? Why don't we just dumb down the game back to Warcraft2, (before BattleNet edition) and remove everything UI improvement including building ques and auto-attack. It would, without a doubt, solve practically every problem we have in SC2 and really distinct the good from the best. 
Nah. Remove the "knife's edge" problem from SC2, and the game is fixed.
Though really though, while WC2 was more fighting the UI than BW, BW was definitely a harder game to play. Things like muta micro, shuttle + reaver micro, move shotting, etc required precision micro (though you had enough time to do "precision micro", unlike SC2 where it's like you get your hand off of your army for 1 second to do "micro"... then you find your army is already gone.
In WC2, it was just mindlessly clicking fast (not that WC2 is bad but the "micro" in WC2 compared to BW is mindlessly clicking fast).
ACTUALLY yet another reason for SC2 to be less "knife's edgy". If the game was less of a knife's edge, players would have more time to actually micro and macro units.
In BW, smart casting wasn't needed at all because it was a more gradual game. You could select individually multiple ghosts to lock down those 8 battlecruisers or multiple corsairs to disruption web multiple areas (inb4 who wastes 500/500 [Fleet Beacon + Spell Upgrade] on Disruption Web) because you didn't worry about all your units dying in seconds.
BW was fast paced, a lot more than WC3 (which some people dislike because it's too slow) but yet it was still gradual.
SC2 is fast paced too but it's a lot less gradual and more "one small mistake, you lose".
Also, again WC3 (which has the same SC2 "interface help", minus unlimited group selection but "PLUS' the fact you can set your entire control group to move at the same speed [which reduced the need to micro]) was arguably an easier game to play than SC2.
WC3, the better player usually won (there are a lot more consistent players in high level WC3 than SC2 right now, though that's not a good argument considering WC3 is kind of low) but the point is, even with the easy interface, WC3 had consistent top players.
What matters is that the game isn't too random (random in the sense that one mistake or one BO can win/lose you the game so easily). And again, this applies to BW too (the game was gradual and not too random).
Edit - I know this isn't concerning smart casting but it does deal with the overall perceived problems of SC2 (that the game is to random and doesn't have as much ways as differentiating player skill level).
I like SC2 but I feel that they can take cues from BW (and WC3) to make SC2 a better game (*cough, bring back reaver with hold fire and weapons free abilities[so you can manually fire scarabs], cough*).
(Reavers are better than anything.)
Edit 2 - Actually, this is what the reasons I like Swarm Hosts - They're not Deathbally and they're not the type of unit that (offensively) causes you to lose in seconds (compared to other units or units compositions). Same with the Tempest, Widow Mine (sort of), etc. HotS is definitely doing the right things in making SC2 more of a gradual game and less of a sword fight (for people tired of "knife's edge" analogy... realistically, sword fights lasts only like seconds unlike movies which show minutes of back and forth action). So instead of sword fights, we want boxing matches (until someone pulls a knife out of nowhere of course)!
___________________
Edit:
Anyway, as for the topic again. Smart cast removal can be reasonable if the game is more gradual (that's why it worked in BW). I definitely do think smart casting removal can make the game more exciting to watch and play (when you successful do something without smart casting and can do it consistently, you feel good). But on to the actual topic of discussing if smart casting will improve the game and make it so the better play wins more often - I'd say no and that the main problem (again) is the fact that game design (how everything dies so fast and one mistake means you lose).
Outside of "IMBA" spells (like forcefields, fungal, etc) that change the outcome of matches in seconds... there's also just an MMM ball stimming and taking things out in seconds. Banelings and Zerglings. Mass colossus, etc. There's a lot of a-move stuff that is as effective as fungals in destroying stuff.
Fungals and forcefields are problems but they're not that much worse problems than the above (I mean, with MMM ball moving in , at least you can position yourself while both fungal and forcefield restrict stuff).
Again, in BW - There was wave after wave of army fighting each other. There was rarely points in the game where all a player's army supply was in one spot (it was usually really spread out).
Ultimate tl;dr - Make game more like BW or WC3. Better player wins more consistently. Also smart cast can be more easily removed to add to spectator PoV or player feeling of success when you successfully do something without smart casting "if" the game requires less of smart casting (fungals, forcefields, etc) because battles end too fast or snowball too fast.
I feel like HotS new units actually address a huge part of the problem without having to change the game's mechanics too much (like path finding, etc).
|
On December 01 2012 14:28 Treehead wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2012 08:11 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Of course the removal of smart casting from certain abilities causes change in balance. That was one of the core points in the OP: because of smart casting, these powerful AoE spells have had to be nerfed significantly to compensate. If smart casting was removed from them, then we'd be looking at re-buffing them to their former strength (or whatever balance numbers make sense). In terms of defining "better", I think the difference has already been clarified, but let's summarize it here: The relationship between spell strength and landing perfect spells is an intertwined one. With smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, anyone can cast perfect spells (e.g. Jangbi-level) with minimal effort. As a result, these spells have had to be nerfed accordingly. These necessary nerfs also mean that you need perfect casting for these spells to have the kind of impact necessary to make them useful (e.g. missed FFs = GG yo). It also makes it very hard for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player in this area. Without smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, it becomes very hard to get a perfect result. Consequently, the spells can be more powerful because most people won't have 100% efficiency. It also means you don't need perfect casting, because the damage you do manage to inflict will still generally be sufficient enough thanks to the increased strength. This also opens a huge opportunity for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player, as their spell casting will be much more efficient. What the OP (and myself) consider "better" is the one that allows for a greater range of skill. In this case, it would be the latter of the two. Now, targeting some specific quotes: On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up? Yes. It's still an incredibly valuable spell in TvP regardless. As for ghosts vs. casters in general, against a clumped group of casters you might want to EMP, while against a split up number of them, snipe would be more useful. It's situational, but the ghost has answers to both. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)? Blizzard never designed the game for Zerg to mass infestors. This style of play is exactly why Blizz is looking to nerf fungal growth -- something they might not have to look at if they instead just removed smart casting from the ability. The best of the best Zergs might still be able to get a similar result that any random ladder player can currently get today, but for most people the ability would be appropriately "nerfed" without actually having to muck with the balance numbers and/or design. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them? What about them? Graviton beam is fine as a smart cast ability. I don't think single-target abilities should lack smart casting -- it'd be too much to try and select a single caster then try and select a single target as well. There should be a good balance between precise and imprecise selection, I think. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)? This question is a clear lack of understanding of the game. Siege tanks don't do as much damage because of some changes to the AI. In Brood War, siege tanks would waste their shots on units that were already killed by another tank; that doesn't happen in SC2, making tank damage much more efficient. Due to increased efficiency, the damage had to be reduced. Sound similar to what I was just saying regarding AoE spells? If you reduce the ease of efficiency with AoE spells, then their strength can very well be returned to BW levels (theoretically). Browder on why they can't remove tank overkill: "To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots." Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change? Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. I bring them up because they are, by their very nature, rebalancing everything. Blizzard has also mentioned that they'll be looking at WoL units for the sake of redesigning/rebalancing them to be better during the HotS beta. And, finally, in terms of the community convincing Blizzard to implement changes through discussion and implementation, look no further than the new unbuildable rocks/debris in HotS. They're the result of the community discussing the ramp block strategy (namely, how to get rid of it because it's stupid) and implementing a band-aid solution in the form of neutral supply depots. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so. A much more powerful and skill-oriented spell casting experience, which opens opportunities to have much cooler/more powerful spells and a better professional scene where top level players have another outlet to differentiate themselves from the pack. I think that's a pretty good reason. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet? This is simple: without addressing how AoE spells work in SC2, even if you add new units and spells, they'll still be restricted from a balance standpoint in terms of what they can do. It really hinders the "cool"-factor that spells could have, as well as the professional scene to a lesser degree. At the end of the day, it's all about wanting SC2 to be the most awesome game it can be. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll keep it high level so this doesn't degenerate into a dozen different discussions (only some of which would really be on topic - all the questions you answered really only meant to indicate that there were a lot of things to consider though, whcih I hope you'll agree on). The larger point I was making is this: the team designing SC2 does not have infinite time to change this game, so while I agree that we want the skill cap to be higher (we want something hard enough to do yet powerful enough when done right - rivalling some of the old BW micro skills), I disagree that making old abilities initiate differently is the best focus of their time. If we're optimizing not the "awesomeness" of each bit of SC2 without regard to time, but instead the "awesomeness" which can be added per unit of time, I think this statement is rather obvious. Why so? If we can agree that adding new things can have the same effect on metagame considerations (which can easily be shown by noting that you can add more powerful units without smartcasting alongside less powerful units without it as two separate units), it's simply a choice of "do I get to see something new?" vs. "do I get to see the same thing I've been seeing, but know that it was harder to do". Either way, the balance testing needs to be done. Either way, the metagame changes. If we make something new versus remaking something old, we do a number of things: 1. You have to add something every expansion - why not add things you know are popular (and not warhounds or replicants which you later will have to pretend you didn't waste resources on)? 2. By raising the skill cap using something new, we don't remove unit functionalities some players have come to like (remember how b.net looks after any unit gets nerfed? or how well removing any of the WoL units went?). 3. When you change something old, it becomes difficult to convince anyone (let alone the people who made the original) that yours is better. This is a great post with well-thought-out reasoning, and yet look at all the people posting who are unconvinced. Now look at all the people who loved Barrin's FRB thread - and still Blizzard isn't budging an inch. Get support for a new idea though (while admittedly harder, I think more people would look at HotS 'my new stuff' threads if they were created by MorroW instead of joblo7), and the bar is substantially lower. Remember Oracle dispel from a HotS patch ago? Grubby's idea. Why? They needed to try something new, and people like Grubby. 4. Remember when you first saw HotS? You thought a lot of it sounded awesome compared to WoL right? That's because it was new. New stuff is fun. Yes, these are all practical considerations. I have no theoretical reasoning that says you're not right about removing smartcasting being a theoretically better move for some casters (I think you are). But I don't see it happening, and there are ways of accomplishing this same goal with a higher likelihood of success - so I don't see why one wouldn't do that, except that it involves being a bit more imaginative approach (or collaborative - you could, for instance, crowdsource ideas and use that as a way of starting out your idea with a lot of support off the bat) . One sidenote: though there are many reasons siege tank damage was lowered from BW, one which many have stated (including LaLush in a post so old I hope I don't have to find it) is that the increased mineral gain from being on a small number of bases makes area controlling spells and abilities (like storm, siege tanks, and lurkers) better. That was what I was referring to.
Fair points. At the end of the day, though, you speak of alternative ways to increase the skill ceiling of spell casting, but don't seem to provide any (unless I missed something, in which case just let me know  ). Another thing to consider is that people also said similarly of getting the neutral supply depot concept on ladder -- that Blizzard would never do it. Lo and behold, we now have unbuildable rocks/debris featured on HotS ladder maps. When I was in the "Blizzard probably won't add the neutral depot concept" camp, I took the time to outline an alternative solution. This time around, I'm willing to help push the simple and straightforward solution (no smart casting on AoE) in the hopes that Blizzard acts the same as they did on the neutral depot issue.
Sidenote: it's interesting you brought up the dispel ability on the Oracle. That was a combo idea between Grubby and myself (he came up with the dispel idea, I suggested to add it to the Oracle).
-----------------------------------------
On December 01 2012 14:59 Resistentialism wrote:
Listen, the line that got you up in arms had a subjoined "Wholly Nonsensical!". Why can't I give an illustrative counterexample to other peoples' absurdity when I see it?
*sigh*
On November 30 2012 16:54 iamcaustic wrote:You said: Show nested quote +What might be more comparable would be if you selected 40 marines and 8 of them stimmed 5 times. Wholly nonsensical! Just like seven storms from seven templar right on the same spot. This is utterly nonsensical and unintuitive, with no relation to what was being discussed before. Why would 8 random marines out of a group of 40 stim 5 times when you only issued the command once? That doesn't make sense. Then let's look at selecting 7 high templar and commanding them to cast storm. If they all go toward the location and storm, this is simply the most pure result of that command: you told 7 templar to storm that spot, so they stormed it. There is no randomness, there is no unknown or unexplained result. Rather, it's incredibly simple and straightforward. Trying to tell me that your ridiculous example is "more comparable" to this is beyond ludicrous.
I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Bolded part is the key here: you keep saying absurd things and pretending like it's no less ridiculous than my statements.
|
I called what I said absurd when I wrote it, and now I'm doing so for a third time. The idea is to show how the line of thinking gets more nonsensical when you try to apply it more broadly. Yes is was purposefully more absurd. IE thank you for noticing, please stop trying to complain about it.
What I wrote really wasn't that clever, and it really ought not be so hard to understand.
|
Canada11258 Posts
I'll take one more swing at this whole intuition thing.
The best analogy I can think of is the Mass Effect cover system. In that game, if you run up to a wall, you automatically crouch behind it so you can shoot from cover. I (even outside the analogy) would much prefer a manual crouch button over the the automatated crouch system.
So your argument goes, it is unintuitive to have a manual crouch button because when you stand next to a wall, a modern game should know that you want to crouch. When would you ever want to stand out in the open to get shot when you could be under cover, shooting. You never, ever, ever want to be in the open firing. Therefore it's unintuitive.
And I'm saying intuition has nothing to do with it. Manually crouching is just is intuitive but the game allows you to mess up by crouching in wrong places where there is no cover or run up to a wall and not crouch because you didn't order it. But you can also crouch in more cover places than the automated system will let you (degrees of cover). Not only that, but the automated system restricts certain movements- 'sticky walls' where you are trying to poke out and shoot, but the automated cover system won't let you move out of cover, even if only for a second. The intuitive of it is your your character obeys your orders precisely even if it is wrong, but also when it is even more right than the computer programming would allow. Automated systems may even out the bottom end, but also (in the cases that I am arguing) serve as a limiter- simultameous magic box casting. Player autonomy if you will.
Intuition doesn't even come into play- both have their own logic. One is automated based on what the computer thinks you want. The other is manual and the computer obeys exactly what you command. This carries the risk on the one hand of being wrong, but on the otherhand being even more precise or faster than the computer will let you.
@Goldfish
You are right that everything dies faster in SC2 (I think it was an over-reaction to WC3 complaints.) The goal is to space out casting a little more, but it is quite possible the rest of the battle might need to be slowed down so armies don't vanish in a blink of an eye.
|
You have a reason to want to crouch sometimes and not crouch at other times, though. That's the difference. In your case the automatic control is unintuitive because it causes your character to perform actions you didn't intend shep/femshep to do, and what's worse, you're now fighting the wall instead of fighting the reapers or whatever.
There's no reason to ever waste storms by simultaneously casting more than one in the same spot.
|
Canada11258 Posts
But there is reason to cast simultameously in multiple spots and the game won't let you do that either. That's what I mean by a manual system allows both. Mess up casting in one spot or be awesome and cast simultameously in multiple spots. Automated single casting chokes this potential.
edit
You can spam out storms with forced single-casting, but that goes back to one of my actual points which is- very few are actually impressed by good storms anymore. They are individually not very powerful and it doesn't take much to spam them out. It's a mundane event.
Harder to do is not the same thing as unintuitive. Just because something is switched to manual control doesn't make it suddenly 'unintuitive.' It's just harder because the computer isn't going to do your job for you. (The difference between most MMORPG range auto targetting vs FPS manual targetting. Manually targetting is difficult and auto-targetting more easily does what you want to do with less clicking, but that doesn't make it one more or less unintuitive.)
|
Game won't let me cast in multiple spots? I'm not the worlds fastest but I can spam out a line of storms and make it look slick. I thought that was the idea, it was too easy for guys like me to cast in multiple spots. If the argument is about magic box formation casting... it might as well just not exist, it never comes up.
|
As a Protoss player, my smart-casters are templar and sentries. Both units feel right to me. Templar are already very difficult to use because you have to manually spread them and use them individually against ghosts. If you're using templar properly in PvT, you're not smart-casting. They're super-easy to use in PvZ, but you also don't seem them much in PvZ because they suck against roaches. And sentries would be useless if not for smart-casting. You don't get anything out of one forcefield, nor do you get anything out of 5 forcefields that are cast over a period 5 seconds. If you can't spam click forcefields, you might as well not have the spell in the game.
The only real issue is spamming fungals and IT's, and while the problem might have to do with the ease of use, I think the more significant problem is that the spells are so good that you can afford to make 30 infestors. You don't see templar spam vs Terran because if Protoss makes 30 templar, they lost to ghosts. Similarly, you don't see ghost spam in the MU because Terran loses to colossi if they build 30 ghosts. There's only one caster in SC2 that you can make 30 of and think that you could probably use a few more.
|
On December 02 2012 03:32 Falling wrote:
You can spam out storms with forced single-casting, but that goes back to one of my actual points which is- very few are actually impressed by good storms anymore. They are individually not very powerful and it doesn't take much to spam them out. It's a mundane event.
I know, like I said, that's what I thought the point of the idea was. The game probably would be better immediately with stronger AoE spells that were also simply harder to use. However, you guys are falling all over yourselves to try and explain away how this is somehow intuitive, and that's just not right. There's also not a chance in hell blizzard is going to go with your suggestion because people would hate it.
On December 02 2012 03:32 Falling wrote:
Harder to do is not the same thing as unintuitive. Just because something is switched to manual control doesn't make it suddenly 'unintuitive.' It's just harder because the computer isn't going to do your job for you. (The difference between most MMORPG range auto targetting vs FPS manual targetting. Manually targetting is difficult and auto-targetting more easily does what you want to do with less clicking, but that doesn't make it one more or less unintuitive.)
What you're talking about now would be more like the game aiming my storms for me. There's a point where automatic control trivializes a game, especially when it's multiplayer. Smartcasting ain't where it's at. Give me an analogy where a game automatically does something critically crippling to your resources in its attempt to "help" you and I can probably explain where they mixed up their idea of what intuitive means. There are plenty of games that give you reasons to want to aim indirectly, too.
|
Best thread ever, I cannot agree with this more. I hope Blizzard takes a look and put this in the expansion.
Removing smart casting solves so many things:
1. When casters say great/amazing/money fungals/storms, they are now actually difficult to do when multiple ones are used.
2. It takes away the 1-A/ 1 group that almost everyone uses, even the pros.
3. Makes it difficult at the pro level, and perhaps we can finally see a reigning champion who can play well every GSL instead of dark horses that keep making the semi-finals. (This current GSL consist of new players pretty much/ or players that were not very famous a few seasons ago) This makes it easier to be a fan of a particular player.
4. No longer will you feel that there is nothing you can do once the opponent has too many spell casters.
@OP Also, I think the nerf of damage from BW is due to the fact that units are more clumped in SC2. In BW there is so much spacing between units so that storms can only probably hit 5 ground units. If they do decide to return the damage I hope they also do it for siege tanks because siege tank nerf damage is quite significant.
Edit:
-I think force fields though, maybe it can be semi- smartcast. You can cast 4 in one group or something. Or else it might be too difficult
-I think terrans need a damage dealing spell caster (the raven seeker missile is not it)
-I am disappointed with HoTS, it gives 2 more spell units for protoss and a tier 3, when they have enough of both. And they gave terrans only 2, and both are low-tier units which terrans have enough of. And I still dislike the swarmhost.
|
I would be fine with a fix to fungal that consists of adding an animation delay to the snare. I'm thinking something along the stun of Leshrac in DotA 2. That is, after you've cast the spell, it takes 1-2 seconds before it actually triggers and snares/damages. That would give time to maneuver out of the area that you thought your opponent cast the fungal at, which would also add an element of mind games as you'd have to anticipate where the fungal was targeted.
|
On December 01 2012 21:36 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 14:28 Treehead wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2012 08:11 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Of course the removal of smart casting from certain abilities causes change in balance. That was one of the core points in the OP: because of smart casting, these powerful AoE spells have had to be nerfed significantly to compensate. If smart casting was removed from them, then we'd be looking at re-buffing them to their former strength (or whatever balance numbers make sense). In terms of defining "better", I think the difference has already been clarified, but let's summarize it here: The relationship between spell strength and landing perfect spells is an intertwined one. With smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, anyone can cast perfect spells (e.g. Jangbi-level) with minimal effort. As a result, these spells have had to be nerfed accordingly. These necessary nerfs also mean that you need perfect casting for these spells to have the kind of impact necessary to make them useful (e.g. missed FFs = GG yo). It also makes it very hard for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player in this area. Without smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, it becomes very hard to get a perfect result. Consequently, the spells can be more powerful because most people won't have 100% efficiency. It also means you don't need perfect casting, because the damage you do manage to inflict will still generally be sufficient enough thanks to the increased strength. This also opens a huge opportunity for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player, as their spell casting will be much more efficient. What the OP (and myself) consider "better" is the one that allows for a greater range of skill. In this case, it would be the latter of the two. Now, targeting some specific quotes: On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up? Yes. It's still an incredibly valuable spell in TvP regardless. As for ghosts vs. casters in general, against a clumped group of casters you might want to EMP, while against a split up number of them, snipe would be more useful. It's situational, but the ghost has answers to both. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)? Blizzard never designed the game for Zerg to mass infestors. This style of play is exactly why Blizz is looking to nerf fungal growth -- something they might not have to look at if they instead just removed smart casting from the ability. The best of the best Zergs might still be able to get a similar result that any random ladder player can currently get today, but for most people the ability would be appropriately "nerfed" without actually having to muck with the balance numbers and/or design. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them? What about them? Graviton beam is fine as a smart cast ability. I don't think single-target abilities should lack smart casting -- it'd be too much to try and select a single caster then try and select a single target as well. There should be a good balance between precise and imprecise selection, I think. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)? This question is a clear lack of understanding of the game. Siege tanks don't do as much damage because of some changes to the AI. In Brood War, siege tanks would waste their shots on units that were already killed by another tank; that doesn't happen in SC2, making tank damage much more efficient. Due to increased efficiency, the damage had to be reduced. Sound similar to what I was just saying regarding AoE spells? If you reduce the ease of efficiency with AoE spells, then their strength can very well be returned to BW levels (theoretically). Browder on why they can't remove tank overkill: "To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots." Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change? Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. I bring them up because they are, by their very nature, rebalancing everything. Blizzard has also mentioned that they'll be looking at WoL units for the sake of redesigning/rebalancing them to be better during the HotS beta. And, finally, in terms of the community convincing Blizzard to implement changes through discussion and implementation, look no further than the new unbuildable rocks/debris in HotS. They're the result of the community discussing the ramp block strategy (namely, how to get rid of it because it's stupid) and implementing a band-aid solution in the form of neutral supply depots. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so. A much more powerful and skill-oriented spell casting experience, which opens opportunities to have much cooler/more powerful spells and a better professional scene where top level players have another outlet to differentiate themselves from the pack. I think that's a pretty good reason. On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet? This is simple: without addressing how AoE spells work in SC2, even if you add new units and spells, they'll still be restricted from a balance standpoint in terms of what they can do. It really hinders the "cool"-factor that spells could have, as well as the professional scene to a lesser degree. At the end of the day, it's all about wanting SC2 to be the most awesome game it can be. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll keep it high level so this doesn't degenerate into a dozen different discussions (only some of which would really be on topic - all the questions you answered really only meant to indicate that there were a lot of things to consider though, whcih I hope you'll agree on). The larger point I was making is this: the team designing SC2 does not have infinite time to change this game, so while I agree that we want the skill cap to be higher (we want something hard enough to do yet powerful enough when done right - rivalling some of the old BW micro skills), I disagree that making old abilities initiate differently is the best focus of their time. If we're optimizing not the "awesomeness" of each bit of SC2 without regard to time, but instead the "awesomeness" which can be added per unit of time, I think this statement is rather obvious. Why so? If we can agree that adding new things can have the same effect on metagame considerations (which can easily be shown by noting that you can add more powerful units without smartcasting alongside less powerful units without it as two separate units), it's simply a choice of "do I get to see something new?" vs. "do I get to see the same thing I've been seeing, but know that it was harder to do". Either way, the balance testing needs to be done. Either way, the metagame changes. If we make something new versus remaking something old, we do a number of things: 1. You have to add something every expansion - why not add things you know are popular (and not warhounds or replicants which you later will have to pretend you didn't waste resources on)? 2. By raising the skill cap using something new, we don't remove unit functionalities some players have come to like (remember how b.net looks after any unit gets nerfed? or how well removing any of the WoL units went?). 3. When you change something old, it becomes difficult to convince anyone (let alone the people who made the original) that yours is better. This is a great post with well-thought-out reasoning, and yet look at all the people posting who are unconvinced. Now look at all the people who loved Barrin's FRB thread - and still Blizzard isn't budging an inch. Get support for a new idea though (while admittedly harder, I think more people would look at HotS 'my new stuff' threads if they were created by MorroW instead of joblo7), and the bar is substantially lower. Remember Oracle dispel from a HotS patch ago? Grubby's idea. Why? They needed to try something new, and people like Grubby. 4. Remember when you first saw HotS? You thought a lot of it sounded awesome compared to WoL right? That's because it was new. New stuff is fun. Yes, these are all practical considerations. I have no theoretical reasoning that says you're not right about removing smartcasting being a theoretically better move for some casters (I think you are). But I don't see it happening, and there are ways of accomplishing this same goal with a higher likelihood of success - so I don't see why one wouldn't do that, except that it involves being a bit more imaginative approach (or collaborative - you could, for instance, crowdsource ideas and use that as a way of starting out your idea with a lot of support off the bat) . One sidenote: though there are many reasons siege tank damage was lowered from BW, one which many have stated (including LaLush in a post so old I hope I don't have to find it) is that the increased mineral gain from being on a small number of bases makes area controlling spells and abilities (like storm, siege tanks, and lurkers) better. That was what I was referring to. Fair points. At the end of the day, though, you speak of alternative ways to increase the skill ceiling of spell casting, but don't seem to provide any (unless I missed something, in which case just let me know ). Another thing to consider is that people also said similarly of getting the neutral supply depot concept on ladder -- that Blizzard would never do it. Lo and behold, we now have unbuildable rocks/debris featured on HotS ladder maps. When I was in the "Blizzard probably won't add the neutral depot concept" camp, I took the time to outline an alternative solution. This time around, I'm willing to help push the simple and straightforward solution (no smart casting on AoE) in the hopes that Blizzard acts the same as they did on the neutral depot issue. Sidenote: it's interesting you brought up the dispel ability on the Oracle. That was a combo idea between Grubby and myself (he came up with the dispel idea, I suggested to add it to the Oracle).
I mean there are a number of straightforward and unimaginative ways to do this.
1. Make a new unit which has a more powerful AE spell without smartcasting attached.
2. Make an upgrade available for each of the T3 casters (probably raven rather than ghost?) which gives them an AE damage ability with a larger radius that deals more damage but does not have smartcasting.
3. Make a new unit/upgrade an old unit so that it can cast a spell which destroys any magical effect in the area including effects which are centered on ground like storm and FF that would not have smartcasting.
There are also more imaginative approaches which don't actually mess with smartcasting but require more work to use well. Please don't post regarding the following changes relative to balance - they aren't intended to be balanced - they're intended to be something which after some amount of testing *could* be balanced. The main theme here is making zones which are difficult not to overlap, but which provide a great benefit when you can do so.
1. We know the Void Ray is going to get a revamp - what about giving them an circular AoE attack (similar to storm) which does smaller damage to smaller units (to keep it from being effective against anti-AA units like the hydra/marine) and which does not stack (so a bunch of clumped up VRs does approximately the same dps one VR does, while 3-4 with well-placeded attacks does much more. For example, let's say a Void Ray Attack occurs as often as storm would tick, has a slightly lower radius and is balanced to deal a % of health so that it would deal Colossus-like damage against roaches, corruptors, and other high-health units, while dealing much, much lower damage against marines and hydras (e.g. 8% of health every half second with a range of 6 and radius of 1 - so it deals a ton of damage to big units, storm-like damage to marauders and roaches, and much, much less against ground-to-air units).
2. We know the thor is going to get 250 CC cannons - what about an ability which creates a zone of immunity to magic around the thor - so that things like fungal/nueral/storm/feedback do not function on units within the zone while the spell is active, and also FF/storm/fungals cannot be placed within the zone (for perhaps 30 seconds, costing 75 energy). Its attack/health will likely need altering to balance this (as it is obviously quite powerful) so that Thor-only armies don't become prominent - effectively remaking the thor into a unit which is best used in small numbers to provide your armies backbone with immunity from crippling spells. Now, army micro becomes about building as few thors as you need to protect the meat of your army and keeping your army within these thor's bubble of protection. Or you could make it in some shape other than a bubble in order to move away from blobby styles of army movement.
3. We could unlink the damage and root from fungal, where the damaging component saps 50 energy from all friendly units within 6 range of it (costing 25 energy to cast). This spell (in order to have more of a 'flavor' to it) could deal 10 damage the first second, and then 20 per second for the next two seconds, and finally 40 in the last second (as the fungus gets worse it deals more damage - like an infection, or you could even just call the ability infection). If a root is still needed to balance zerg play (with Vipers it may not), perhaps an additional root spell could be researched.
Just a few examples of how you could make things which promote micro but don't require a rework on existing things. The biggest reason I didn't mention this before is that just about everyone high level will look at this list, look at my name, and conclude that since I'm nobody, I'm probably not worth listening to. A moderator or progamer has a much lower hurdle for proposed changes getting community support (that's why I suggested they think something up - not because I don't have plenty of ideas).
You can argue that these are all bad in the current game without drastic changes - and you're right, but drastic changes can come with new content, and HotS will (and should) be drastically different.
|
On December 02 2012 05:10 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 03:32 Falling wrote:
You can spam out storms with forced single-casting, but that goes back to one of my actual points which is- very few are actually impressed by good storms anymore. They are individually not very powerful and it doesn't take much to spam them out. It's a mundane event. I know, like I said, that's what I thought the point of the idea was. The game probably would be better immediately with stronger AoE spells that were also simply harder to use. However, you guys are falling all over yourselves to try and explain away how this is somehow intuitive, and that's just not right. There's also not a chance in hell blizzard is going to go with your suggestion because people would hate it.
Seriously can we stop with this intutitve vs unintuitive crap? It is personal preference as to what everyone thinks is "intuitive". This word doesn't belong in the conversation. You are correct: Blizzard won't change this because too many people would be pissed about it no matter how much more intriguing it makes the game at higher levels.
With this change would have to come other drastic BALANCE changes that I personally am all for, but again I don't think Blizzard is about trying to redesign the game because a minority of us believe this could be done better.
|
On December 02 2012 01:55 Resistentialism wrote:
I called what I said absurd when I wrote it, and now I'm doing so for a third time. The idea is to show how the line of thinking gets more nonsensical when you try to apply it more broadly. Yes is was purposefully more absurd. IE thank you for noticing, please stop trying to complain about it.
What I wrote really wasn't that clever, and it really ought not be so hard to understand.
You're certainly correct about not being clever.
On December 01 2012 21:36 iamcaustic wrote:
I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Bolded part is the key here: you keep saying absurd things and pretending like it's no less ridiculous than my statements.
Bolding for emphasis again. Nobody said or implied that your example wasn't purposefully absurd. The issue is that you considered the removal of smart casting on AoE spells to be equivalent to that level of absurdity, which isn't even close to the truth. There is certainly a failure to understand here, but the issue isn't on my end.
|
Just remove the smart casting...And everything will be all right..
If they remove smart casting..Then we will see fan girl shouting again watching snipe,fungals,storms,seeker missiles..
And also if they remove smart casting they will have to increase the strength of the spells..So that those few but well executed spells can make the difference(i said few and well executed)..
it will also discourage army ball...As programmer wont want to get hit by a strong storm or fungals or even seeker missile..
And I believe just removing the smart casting is the key to solve every problem that we are facing now like fungals, noneffective storms and snipe..
|
I think they should also revert back to the group limit. Maybe increase a bit from BW and make it 20 or something. It is ridiculous to see everything under 1 group.
|
On December 02 2012 14:13 thesums wrote:
I think they should also revert back to the group limit. Maybe increase a bit from BW and make it 20 or something. It is ridiculous to see everything under 1 group.
It actually sucks to keep everything in a single group. At the very least, you're going to want spell casters in a different group to more easily manage spells and to avoid having them run into enemy fire. It's also ridiculously hard to manage harassment groups without having them in separate control groups.
I really don't see it being an issue as players continue to get better at the game.
|
On December 01 2012 10:28 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 02:00 DrowSwordsman wrote:
I did want to write a longer response, but for now I just have a few questions/sort of statements:
What is the balance between your ideas that (I've read you once say it is indeed a factor of both) the nerfing of spells like storm is from both 'smart-casting' and from unit clumping? AKA, how much stronger could you make storm if unit movement wasn't touched? I'm actually not sure on that and would be interested to know your thoughts.
I do think specifically in this case as compared to your other blog posts ("a-move unit", "Leveling the playing field", etc) that this wouldn't automatically result in a 'better game'. It really does feel like different design changes and balance changes could make spells less prominent but I understand why casters being easier to use in some ways sort of promotes that. If a storm goes off on a huge clump of units, that usually does bring about some excitement from the crowd. I know in response people will say "dude THESE GIRLS ARE SCREAMING FOR JANGBI'S STORMS", but we all know BW/SC2 are much less popular now in Korea than when that video was taken, I don't think storm is missing out on that viewership factor quite as much as implied. That was a really awesome time in Korean culture for Starcraft that I don't think BW casting would reinvigorate.
I guess spreading out fungals over an entire army would be harder than it is now, but the spell IMHO still would need a rebalance/redesign, as it really wouldn't be any harder at the pro level to catch that clump of vikings, wait out the root, send in another fungal, etc.
Just sort of initial thoughts I had when reading this a week ago. I actually think the pathing AI (unit clumping) has little effect overall. Good players still split their units well against storm; it's more the fact that it is so easy for the storming player to cast a bunch of perfectly spread storms, getting insane efficiency even when the splitting player performs well. The issue is compounded in lower leagues when players aren't very good at splitting, making the easy execution and high efficiency of AoE spells hold an incredible amount of weight. I think going the popularity route isn't a very solid argument. There are a lot of factors surrounding StarCraft in Korea, and even if we take the notion that it isn't/will never be as popular as it was, that still doesn't affect the underlying argument regarding spell casting in SC2. One could even point to competitive StarCraft in the West and its explosive growth as a counter-balance to its perceived decline in Korea, if you really wanted. As far as fungals on vikings is concerned, note how you said "clump" of vikings. Split, yo! Besides, it certainly would be harder to pull off in the middle of a battle than it currently is, which is when it really counts. Happening to catch some vikings with an infestor outside of a major engagement is one of those "whoops" moments.
Just read this post. Yeah I wasn't really going for the "popularity" argument other than people posting videos of Jangbi's storms isn't a convincing argument of why casting in BW was better because it is pretty unlikely that would ever happen again.
And to that last one, I'm not talking about me in my personal games. Ryung v Hyun on Abyssal City (I think it was IPL just this weekend, maybe NASL sometime in the last week? EDIT: It was NASL, I remember Rotterdam saying "this is so stupid!", it was in the NASL playoffs) is a pretty good example. Ryung is way ahead all game, vikings as they move forward to attack begin to clump, not even insanely but just enough that once they're trapped in the fungal they can't get free. Ryung actually did end up winning that game but by the skin of his teeth when he was ahead in bases/supply most of the game. Storm makes much more sense to me in that way, if you get sloppy and let your units get clumped up, your vikings are going to have a lot of damage on them. With fungal, they are gone. No ifs, ands, or buts. The way that relates to this discussion is removing smart-casting isn't going to solve this issue IMO. In situations like that it is not significantly harder to just grab infestors one at a time to keep ensaring the units. But design/balance change will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
