|
On June 13 2013 23:31 RemrafGrez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote:
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale. Roach bane stuff counters greedy play into bio mines (which up until then seemed a bit too strong). Is this a bad thing? I don't understand your comment. It's too early still to know if widow mines are a problem, and since a very possible counter has been found they just got less scary. As for Voidrays, they have plenty of counters. Hydra timings, mutas, queens, mutas + corruptors. For instance, why shouldn't zerg need to save up larva and gas and mass pump mutas to counter them? Maybe Zergs have to open air by default - or open with overlord speed to scout what is up. Voidrays have far from been proven to be overpowered, and they are certainly killable if you have the right units.
I don't understand why people think the roach/bane play is some desperate move because zerg can't win. Soulkey did it because the current terran builds were so greedy. Fast cc into factory, into double Ebay and four raxs' all at once, followed by a third CC. All on the back of 6 hellions.
It was a build that way beyond greedy and got punished for being so. its how the meta works out.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
|
On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. Show nested quote +1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. Show nested quote +In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new.
The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower.
The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2.
If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting.
It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
|
On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. Show nested quote +1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.Show nested quote +In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
You don't get small engagements when it is a much superior strategy to take advantage of unit critical mass. People just build up to that mass and voila, you have deathballs.
I think balancing with maps is the way to go. Maps with more chokes will favour smaller engagements imo. Then you can have battles like in the movie 300 if a player decides to push up a choke with his whole army against smaller but better positioned squad.
TLDR:
More chokes, tighter chokes = less deathball. Also fuck Collosi cliff-walking; completely disregards chokes.
|
On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
I always find it funny that everyone thinks the infinite limit on unit selection is a progress of technology when during the original design all the way back in Warcraft I there was no upper limit design issue originally, and it was a design choice by the team to limit unit selection capabilities as explained below.
+ Show Spoiler +I believe that Warcraft was the first game to use this user-interface metaphor. When I first implemented the feature it was possible to select and control large numbers of units at a time; there was no upper limit on the number of units that could be selected.
While selecting and controlling one hundred units at a time demonstrated terrible weaknesses in the simple path-finding algorithm I had implemented, after I got the basic algorithms working I nevertheless spent hours selecting units and dispatching game units to destinations around the map instead of writing more code; it was the coolest feature I had ever created in my programming career up to that time!
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
Apart from the ability to control multiple units at one time, at this phase Warcraft resembled nothing so much as a stripped-down version of Dune 2, so much so that I defensively joked that, while Warcraft was certainly inspired by Dune 2, the game was radically different — our radar minimap was in the upper-left corner of the screen, whereas theirs was in the lower-right corner.
Source: Blog: Patrick Wyatt, Former Game Developer at Blizzard Entertainment
|
On June 13 2013 22:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army. In the below thread I covered that question quite extensively; (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=291) Overall, you have some points, but I think that if you read my posts you'll realize the importance making a disctinction between what is cost-effective and what is efficient. Thus are two very different terms. Action will occur when player x assess that he can trade armies efficiently. In that assseesment he is weighting incentivizes against the potential of taking an cost-ineffective trade. The key-takeway is that a terran player is more likely to engage a protoss player that is in the proces of obtaining a critical mass of collosus (for instance), than engaging against a player which didn't benfit from scale (certeris paribus). Thus the "critical unit-element" is a very important aspect of game design as it incentivies the opponent to army-trade even though he may take a cost-ineffive trade in the proces. It is important to note though, that neither player must benefit from critical numbers to the same degree as that will result in neither of them having a strong incentive to army trade. Show nested quote +If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive. But in terms of unit-design we can give players new micro-opportunities as the game progresses; For instance blink, HT, Reavers or redesigned collosus etc. There are many ways to increase the micro requirements throughout the entire game. It's just a different type of micro, and to be honest I see that as a good thing as watching only stupper step throughout the entire game might be a bit boring. Btw, I don't want to defend Dustin Browder. I think time has shown that he has a pretty bad understanding of both matchup-design (swarm hosts and tempests doesn't exactly create good games) and unit design (collosus and forcefields are quite boring). Show nested quote +In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army. I think yoou may be mixing things together different here. High economy doesn't matter in it self. The only metric that matters is the ratio of army food/bases. A worse economy will decrease the above metric and therefore force players to spread them selves thinner. This will benefit the race that has the incentivize to army-trade (it will buff his tools). When his tools are strong, action is more likely to occur (assuming his incentivie is unchanged). However, I think the point you are missing is that it doesn't really matter whether the one player wants to keep his army in a deathball (or whether he wants to spread it out). What matters instead,is the strenght of the tools available from the opponent to army trade/harass efifciently against the defensive player (that benefits from scale). If his tools are significantly strong then action will occur regardless, and if his tools are "mobility-based" then multitasking will occur and the defensive player will be forced (despite what he wants to) to spread out his army. It is important to note that the army size/bases-ratio is just one way to increase the relative mobility disadvantage of the defensive player. Buffing the mobility of the opposing player can create the same effect (if done correctly). Show nested quote +Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat". I gave a lot of examples in the second post of the thread I referred to.
1. Your theory of "adding incentives to be aggressive" sounds nice, but is stupid, because the bottom line of this - as your Terran example shows - is a whole lot of "don't let them get there" strategies. That is silly for an RTS where you *should have* units to deal with any threat ... in every stage of the game ... and with every race. That keeps the design of the game nice and simple. The "kill Zerg early" tactic of Terrans was only devised because it was the only way to win. You can't add such a "threatening unit combo where others have to kill you before you get there" for all three races, because that would result in a possible "both players decide NOT to harrass and focus on getting the max army" scenarios ... which is the opposite of "forcing more action". Only one race can have the advantage over the other.
2. I have no idea what examples you are referring to and if you are incapable of copying them from your own post then that isnt my problem. I am not going to go through all your posts and guess what you are talking about, because then I would be answering to something completely different.
3. BW has a MUCH smaller economy and games there involve a much lower unit density, so please dont try to tell me that I have got it wrong.
4. Hint: Blink is a NECESSARY "microing tool" to make the Stalker worthwile against mass Marines or Zerglings. You seem to have missed that point and are still thinking that it is a neat microing trick which they added because it was cute.
5. Critical numbers are BAD ... VERY BAD for game design, because they imporve the unit efficiency by a large margin and thus change the balancing of the unit. Get rid of the notion that the game can work with them or that they can be used as an incentive to force someone to attack an opponent.
|
On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. Show nested quote +1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. Show nested quote +In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
|
On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
They aren't going to totally revamp the entire game two months after HotS came out. You do realize that removing Reactors, MULEs, Warpgate, Inject, Creep, and all that other stuff would utterly change literally every single aspect of the game, right? It's just not going to happen.
|
On June 14 2013 01:35 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers. They aren't going to totally revamp the entire game two months after HotS came out. You do realize that removing Reactors, MULEs, Warpgate, Inject, Creep, and all that other stuff would utterly change literally every single aspect of the game, right? It's just not going to happen.
Rabiator doesn't really care about what is possible or if things could destroy the game as we know it. He likes to be an arm chair game designer and provide all the "reasons" why SC2 is not "amazing". Of course, he also thinks that BW was mechanically easier than SC2 and more accessible.
|
On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
|
On June 12 2013 17:09 Oboeman wrote:Show nested quote +
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
what do you mean? each game had a distinctly different all-in. two of them worked. remember zvt before the queen/overlord patch? Z opened 4 queens every game then flipped a coin, it was either 2 base lair or roach baneling all in. Terran could easily outgreed the 2-base lair builds (extra CCs and e-bays before making units), and the only thing keeping them honest was the threat that z would roach bust him a little under half the time. the patch addressed that by letting zerg out of his base, but was generally considered to be overkill because no one really knew just how good creep was, because they never had the means to get it truly out of control. what about subtle changes to units secondary stats. acceleration. damage point. range slop. Change the way the units feel under your control, without drastically changing their stats. Not seeing enough oracles? better acceleration lets them dip and dive more easily without giving the capability of singlehandedly annihilating a worker line. Maybe they'd be better at casting revelation without dying. At worst, you still don't see enough of them, but when you do see them they are cool to watch. Hellbats killing worker line too quickly, but playing the proper role in midgame and lategame? Increase the delay on their attack, and adjust cooldown so its the same DPS but starts later. More time to pull workers away from it as the medivac flies overhead. More possible to reactively micro against them. Ironically might be a buff against lings/zealots (see thread on blinding cloud vs hellbats: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405902)while we're at it, look at the acceleration for BCs, carriers, banshees and broodlords. maybe void rays, mutalisks, and medivacs too.
Good post. Acceleration changes on units (Oracle at the least) and the delay on attack for hellbats makes a great deal of sense from where I am sitting.
|
On June 13 2013 23:48 Plansix wrote:
I don't understand why people think the roach/bane play is some desperate move because zerg can't win. Soulkey did it because the current terran builds were so greedy. Fast cc into factory, into double Ebay and four raxs' all at once, followed by a third CC. All on the back of 6 hellions.
It was a build that way beyond greedy and got punished for being so. its how the meta works out.
Not according to what I've seen. Often times, T will stick to 4Ms and expand as they trade Z will have to improve the unit composition in order to beat the same (but more) army. As Z dries out or fails to secure more bases Z seem to fighting against the clock.
I don't think the match up is off-balance statistically. All in or not, I expect better players win in TvZs. But having one race as an attacker and the other as a defender/receiver throughout the game seems a bit too much. Example: I miss mutalisks wrecking havoc in terran bases. Haven't seen those for so long.
|
On June 14 2013 01:12 plogamer wrote:
I think balancing with maps is the way to go. Maps with more chokes will favour smaller engagements imo. Then you can have battles like in the movie 300 if a player decides to push up a choke with his whole army against smaller but better positioned squad.
TLDR:
More chokes, tighter chokes = less deathball. Also fuck Collosi cliff-walking; completely disregards chokes.
I agree but then we would have to think about a way to deal with force-field because that spell would become too powerful.
But it's still lot easier/elegant to implement than overhauling pathfinding IMO.
|
David Kim is just talking to back his own game, PvT I feel is in a worse state than WoL. Before there was actually more action going on from the protoss side, protoss is even more forced into a defend drops and win when the ball is complete type of play. Stargate is a failure in the matchup, it's completely gimmicky and the mothership core is never used for timings/harassment with recall, literally haven't seen it once in progame.. It's not going to get fixed in HotS though, maybe some small stargate / drop buffs for P and slight drop nerfs for T but the matchup will remain the worst of the non-mirrors.
I do agree voidrays are in an excellent spot, not overpowered and seeing the right amount of use making stargate a nice alternative in both PvP and PvZ. If only it could work in PvT and actually see protoss using meaningfull air plays except the '2 oracles and hope i surprise you' gimmickness.
Widow mines are fine too on a balance level but I don't think them replacing siege tanks in TvZ is better for the game. I had rather seen them be complimentary in some way.
All in all balance is pretty much fine now and most matchups are ok but there are definately improvements to be made. PvT needs to be more dynamic especially from the P side, ZvT could see some more strat diversity and TvT needs some hellbat drop change. Just a small general drop nerf for T is probably the best move, they are showing signs of slightly being too strong and it just benefits the game if drop defense wouldn't be the only focus when playing against terran.
|
Widowmine needs redesign, it's completly fu***up.
Mine burrowed (was active, not on cooldown), my units were in range (i could see the mine without detection) but for 3 secs nothing happened and i just moved my units away...
They don't even fire if something is in range some times. I love this as a Zerg player, but it's kinda random.
|
On June 14 2013 01:17 SigmaFiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. I always find it funny that everyone thinks the infinite limit on unit selection is a progress of technology when during the original design all the way back in Warcraft I there was no upper limit design issue originally, and it was a design choice by the team to limit unit selection capabilities as explained below. + Show Spoiler +I believe that Warcraft was the first game to use this user-interface metaphor. When I first implemented the feature it was possible to select and control large numbers of units at a time; there was no upper limit on the number of units that could be selected.
[b]
While selecting and controlling one hundred units at a time demonstrated terrible weaknesses in the simple path-finding algorithm I had implemented[/b], after I got the basic algorithms working I nevertheless spent hours selecting units and dispatching game units to destinations around the map instead of writing more code; it was the coolest feature I had ever created in my programming career up to that time!
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
Apart from the ability to control multiple units at one time, at this phase Warcraft resembled nothing so much as a stripped-down version of Dune 2, so much so that I defensively joked that, while Warcraft was certainly inspired by Dune 2, the game was radically different — our radar minimap was in the upper-left corner of the screen, whereas theirs was in the lower-right corner. Source: Blog: Patrick Wyatt, Former Game Developer at Blizzard Entertainment
high lighted and underline the important part. I mean if we just look at some of the classic RTS games, most have limits on their selections and even earlier iteration you cannot even select more than 1. Technological limits is definitely at effect here.
Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers, and it have very little social options. Team modes are way too imbalance and Blizzard should have strive team mode to be as balance as it can be.
Most people, including myself, played wc3 solely for team games. Its casual and fun, but not so much for sc2. Blizz should add things specifically for team games (such as units) that will make the experience much more balance and enjoyable. For instance, some sort of recall options or specialized defend structures.
|
On June 14 2013 00:58 teslar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point. I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for the power (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks?
Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote:
Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
----
On June 14 2013 02:03 Elldar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers. So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
You can't argue that decreased unit selection would be hindering the user via the UI and hence a step backwards in technology, can you?
On June 14 2013 08:50 Chemist wrote:
Widowmine needs redesign, it's completly fu***up.
Mine burrowed (was active, not on cooldown), my units were in range (i could see the mine without detection) but for 3 secs nothing happened and i just moved my units away...
They don't even fire if something is in range some times. I love this as a Zerg player, but it's kinda random.
Widow mine has a sort of 'lock on' time, if the unit it was locked on to moved out of it's lock on range before the mine fires then it will change target and not fire.
|
On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:58 teslar wrote:On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point. I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever. I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for the power (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo". The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units. You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff". Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ... ---- Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote:
Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers, A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO. ---- Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 02:03 Elldar wrote:On June 14 2013 01:31 Rabiator wrote:On June 14 2013 00:36 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 16:04 Targe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to increase the quality of engagements?
1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities.
2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro.
3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable. Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them. It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all. To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement. Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted. ---- Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ... Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units. Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting). ---- In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game. You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen. 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR
2. they dont care. OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed. The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it. In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do". Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW. That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ... Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers. So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo. It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill. After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement. Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
|
Really stupid reasoning over mines replacing tanks.
'A Marine-Tank army is autowin against Zerg.'
Get real Blizzard, give some credit to the players involved here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
