|
On June 14 2013 17:23 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote: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 ... ---- 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: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
he just wishes we were still playing Brood war
unfortunately we have moved on and this is the SC2 forum
|
On June 14 2013 17:48 Nekovivie wrote:
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.
I think you greatly missinterprete what they were saying.
DK's point was, that with marine/tank vs zerg it's much easier to just check the army sizes, watch the precombat positioning, and then you know which side will win the battle before the battle takes place.
While with widow mines instead, you dont know because it depends a lot more on small micro moves.
|
Vatican City State582 Posts
On June 12 2013 09:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 09:02 Waxangel wrote:- When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
- When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random Yeah, complete nonsense. Good luck predicting the outcome of Mine hits.
fyi, you can micro widow mine targets, which requires skill and more micro
not to mention mine placement vs relative army position also takes a lot of skill
|
Vatican City State582 Posts
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).
TL;DR, do yourself and everyone a favor and just go back to bw or make a mod lol
|
On June 14 2013 01:22 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 22:09 Hider wrote:"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. 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). 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). 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.
I will quote my posts instead then. But the reason I linked was that the posts are really long. But if you had read (and understood) the second properly you would realize that your 1st and 5th are already adressed in my post. The key is to create a dynamic matchup with the clock switching sides over the course of a game. This means that there is no longer any such thing as a "don't let him get there". Instead, there will be a new concept :"you have to do damage(either direct or indirect) before he gets there".
Regarding your point 4: Honestly I don't get your point here. I think in my last post I clearly stated that the addition of blink worked as a substitute for kiting. That just prooves that you can still have micro (but a different kind of) without changing the density of units as long as the unit design is good enough. Is your point that it is bad game-design if kiting stalkers isn't rewarding throughout the entire game?
On June 05 2013 19:50 Hider wrote:Introduction (to a long post)I have for a long time wanted to write a post discussing how we can make the game even more awesome and fun to play and watch. However, while I always feel like I have understood some of the ingredients required in awesome games, I didn't really feel like I properly understood the whole package. But after having thought about gamedynamic/design on a daily basis for a couple of months, I think I have obtained a decent knowledge of the various factors which determine how players play during a matchup. Therefore I have written a quite lenghty post where I discuss the neccesary factors, relate them to Starbow and come up with suggestions and how we can improve Starbow. To limit myself, this post will only focus on the TvZ matchup. Characteristics of a fun/awesome game.+ Show Spoiler +Let me first try try to present the elements I want to see in a matchup.
1) A very action- and multitaskpacked game where Tasteless wouldn't have time to talk about his favourite pokemon (which implies that there is also action early in the game).
2) A game where different types of strategies for each race are viable (players can opt between offensive and defensive strategies)
3) A dynamic matchup where both races have viable options to pressure/attack/harass the opponent. It shouldn't just be a one-way thing. There are two overall types of ways this can be done;
Approach 1: Overbuff harass-units which will make it efficient to harass the opponent rather than attacking with your deathball.
Approach 2: This approach has two steps. The first is to create the right incentive. To understand the importance of incentive we can look at the TvZ HOTS matchup. IMO this matchup is probably the most actionpacked matchup in any RTS ever developed (ok, I am talking just sc2, starbow and BW. I have no clue about other games). While this mathcup isn't particularly dynamic as zerg for the majority of the game can't really attack/pressure the terran player in any non-allinsh'h way. But lets ignore that for now, and just focus on understanding why it is so actionpacked...
Based on my observartions and play, the terran player has such a strong incentivie to army trade and harass the opponent for three reasons;
1) His 200/200 army is worse than the muta/bling 200 food army as widow mines (while cost effective) are supply ineffective. This means that he doesn't want the zerg to ever be maxed (especially not with a bank).
2) While bio + mines can trade somwhat evenly with muta/bling, they are quite cost ineffective vs infestor + ultra's, which creates a "clock" on the bio player. Basically he needs to be at an advantageous position when zerg has tier 3 units out.
3) Trading armies generally favor the more mobile army, and in this case the bio/mine/medivac army is actually more mobile than the bling/muta army (+infestor/ultra) army. The intuition behind this logic is that it is easier for the more mobile army to harass a 4base 130 food zerg army thats static defenses than a 180 food zerg army with lots of static defenses.
The combinations of the above 3 factors, results in giving the terran player a really strong incentive to trade armies with the zerg player. However, in it self these 3 factors doesn't imply that he can do it. In WOL for instance you could argue that the terran player had the a similar incentive vs broodlord/infestor. However, they simply couldn't harass/trade armies efficiently back then, so this means that the second requirement in approach 2 is to give the players the tools to "follow their incentive".
The main difference between approach 1 and 2, is that in approach 1 the harass/army-trading needs to be costeffective while it just needs to be efficient in Approach 2. For instance, if you have a much better economy it can be efficient to trade armies at a 70% cost efficiency.
+ Show Spoiler +This is highly relevant because we need to think about how the matchup will work depending on how we change the units. But lets first look at how TvZ in Starbow currently works.
- Does it use Approach 1? Reapers and banshee's I think are examples of "overpowered" cost-efficient harass units. However, I don't 2 units are enough to give it the "Approach1-effect".
- What about approach 2: One could argue that the zerg player has a strong incentive to army-trade vs the mech'ing player. But are his tools really that strong?, and does the zerg player really have a strong enough economy to make costineffective armytrading efficient? I am not convinced thereof.
What about when the terran goes bio; Who is the more mobile in muta/bling vs bio? I would argue that the muta-bling player is a bit more mobile as the zerg player (unlike in BW) can get a lot more than 12 mutalisks which makes it quite hard for the terran player to move out. Thus in theory the bio player shouldn't be interested in army trading vs that composition and instead try to become more cost effective by mixing in tanks and SV's. The clock will be on the zerg player here as he needs to do damage before the terran gets a critical mass of tanks and vikings to deal with mutas (or w/e unit Kabel will come up with).
However, the problem in Starbow (unlike in in WOL anno 2011 where the tank/marine vs muta/bling was really dynamic and interesting) is that the zerg player going muta/bling simply doesn't have a stronger economy than the terran player. So he can't really army trade efficiently. Thus he needs to play a bit carefully and look for cost effective engagements when/if the terran player is caught of guard. This isn't easy as bio is still quite mobile. So to sum up; The problem is that muta/bling and biological heavy units are too similar in terms of their strenghts and disadvantages.
What about when the zerg player uses lurker instead of banelings?
Isn't it the exact same thing? The bio player still needs to play somewhat defensively and tech to tanks and SV's. His best-response is the exact same thing as when he plays vs banelings, and I don't think that is particularly good game design.
My suggestions+ Show Spoiler +I think it should be clear by now that the TvZ Starbow matchup isn't working optimal. While it isn't terrible by any means, Approach 2 could be improved upon by quite a lot by giving the players the tools and the incentive to create a more actionpacked game.
Suggestion 1: Further increase the mobility of muta/bling to improve its tools. Also consider reducing the efficiency of his 200/200 food army by increasing baneling supply from 0.5 to 1 as this will put a clock on the zerg player.
Suggestion 2: Reduce mobility but increase cost efficiency of the lurker to make the terran bio player more mobile than the zerg if he opts for Lurkers.
Suggestion 3: The counter to lurkers shouldn't just be based on the pure quantity of Scicence vessels as that will remove the "clock-effect" of bio. Make irradiate a soft-counter to Lurkers instead of a hard-counter.
But even with these 3 suggestions, the matchup won't work properly as the zerg player still won't have a strong enough economy to make a cost-ineffective trade efficient with muta/bling. Again, this wasn't a problem in BW as the zerg (when going mutas) wasn't as mobile due to the unit selection max. And, as should be clear by now, the mobile race needs a significantly stronger economy than the immobile race.
And in the end I don't see that I can do anything else, but conclude that the Starbow zerg economy doesn't work. In order to create the correct incentives, the zerg player needs to have at least +10 worker lead advantage while going muta-bling. I don't see the any other potential solution than;
Suggestion 4: Buff larva-generation efficiency of the zerg economy.
Suggestion 5: Reduce cost efficiency of speedlings (this is a neccesary change if suggestion 4 goes through).
Obviously this will probably be an unpopular suggestion in this forum, because some people like BW over Sc2, and in BW you would do XX with zerg. However, if you respond to this suggestion, please look at this logically rather than basing your arguments on nostalgia
Thanks in advance.
Below is my second post (giving examples of tools).
On June 06 2013 06:36 Hider wrote:
Let me be a bit more specific of the effect I think a zerg economy buff will have;
Early game/early midgame: Opponent is incentivized to force the zerg player into making army units instead of drones. Leaving the zerg alone is not particularly punishing currently in Starbow, however it will be quite bad after a zerg econ change (this will incentivize early game action).
Midgame: Assuming that the zerg player in an average game will end up with a better econ than the opponent, but less cost effective and that he will scale inefficetly (e.g. against a bio heavy player with just 1-2 tanks he will do pretty okay'ish. but against 6-7 tanks he will do pretty bad).
Compared to WOL zvt, A muta/bling zerg in Starbow is actually an advantegous position in terms of tools available as the opponent needs to bases quicker in Starbow which will make abusing immobility more efficient for the zerg player. On the other hand he will be a bit less cost effective (TvZ at least) due to medi's and stronger tanks.
Late game: If the zerg does a pretty decent job of further strenghen his lead in the midgame, he can either opt for the killing blow or use his economical advantage to tech into higher tier units. That will too some extent change the clock from the zerg player to the therran player. This is what I call a dynamic game; When the clock can switch from one player to another multiple times over the cause of a single game.
However, it should be important to stress out that it must not be optimal for the zerg player to tech directly into tier 3 and thus skip the whole midgame proces. This tier 3 tech switch must be something which requires a midgame-advantage (too avoid the whole 14minute broodlord thing from WOL).
But let me ask: Does anyone consider the above game dynamic to be bad, because at least from a theoretical POV adopting an Sc2 zerg'ish economy will fit perfectly into Starbow (it will work better than in Sc2 I think).
Let me also try to redefine what I imply by tools:
I see 4 overall types of tools:
Type 1: Cost effective army trading
Type 2: Risk-free harass/engaging (which occurs when you can always escape. This tool in it self is not particular efficient though).
Type 3: Abuse of immobility
Type 4: Having a significant better econ so you can afford to trade cost ineffectively.
Though one could argue that the "cost effective army-trading"-tool contradicts with the fact that the more mobile army needs to be cost ineffective, it's actually not that simple afterall. We need to take a more nuanced POV to understand how incentives and tools work.
In HOTS the terran can actually trade armies cost effective against a zerg player. This is a neccesary requirement for the terran player in HOTS as his econ typically will be slightly worse in the midgame than the econ of the zerg player. But instead, the threat of letting the zerg tech to tier 3 ultras + the supply inefficiency incentives the terran player to army trade.
His tools are actually a combination of all 3 of them. He can abuse immobiltiy with medivacs, but that factor in it self only works when your army is significantly more mobile than the muta/bling army. The MMMM army is only slightly more mobile than the muta/bling army, so the terran player needs the two other factors as well in order to have effective tools. So when taking the role as a game designer with a topdown approach we need to analyze the overall value of the tools in a given matchup.
For instance lets relate this to the current Starbow TvZ matchup. We clarified previously that neither player really had strong incentivies to do anything. Bio + SV's + a couple of tanks are cost effective enough to deal with most stuff. Too some extent the bio player will probably at a disadvantage when ultras are out, thus there is a bit of a clock running against him, but its not particularly strong.
But now, let's look at his tools the terran player has avaiable against a muta-bling player;
- Should he invest 100/50 in dropships to abuse immobility (the 3rd type of tool)? Well probably not untill the zerg is on 5+ bases (because it is just too easy to deal with them with mutas when you as a zerg player isn't spread out thinly).
- Can he army-trade efficiently when going pure bio? Not really (unless your marineking), thus we can conclude that pure bio really (theoretically) isn't that good of a unit composition against muta-bling. So instead he will (should) mix in tanks which puts the clock on the zerg player.
However, what kind of tools does the zerg have?
- Is the abuse of immobility with banelings being of medium mobility really strong enough?
- Are mutalisks harass really strong enough in them selves to make the abuse of immobility efficient?
Personally I think that the answer to the above 2 questions is; "Too some extent, but not enough". As we already established that the zerg player can't efficiently army trade (which mean there is no type 1), it seems that we either should further strenghten mobility of the zerg army or increase the cost effectiveness (type 1), buff its econ (type 4) or/and improve its mobility (type 3).
I believe we should choose the latter two options (eco buff and mobility).
Again this was a long post, but I think an understanding of this subject is extremely important if we want to develop an awesome game. We can't just cross fingers and hope that everything will turn out awesome.
|
On June 14 2013 08:37 Markwerf wrote:
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.
This is true. David Kim still has a very unrefined design philosphy. His philosphy is this; Offense must be better than defense so stalemales don't occur (he said something like this in a SOTG episode).
However, that philosphy is only partly true. The thing is; Offense must be efficient, but if the strenght of offense is based on mobility (such as drops), then its potential damage must be limited. The problem in TvP is that if the protoss is slightly caught out of position, a couple of medivacs in the base can end the game. This is poor "match-up"-design as it incentivies the protoss to stay in the base and "defend".
So a buff to offense (buff of speed medivacs) is actually counterproductivty in TvP as it rewards passive play from the protoss side.
We are seing the same thing in TvT with hellbats where it a player opening bio-tank needs to have a bunker with a tank in each mineral line to defend against a mech'ing terrans potential hellbat drops.
This is terrible "match-up"deisgn as the bio heavy player (if he plays well) neutralizies the hellbat drop play, but at the expense of letting the mech'ing terran get an economy of similar strenght (or perhaps even slightly better).
When that occurs the bio heavy player can't army trade efficiently anymore, which incenntivies passive play.
Instead, great "match-up design" decreases the potential damage that a drop/nydus play/runbuy's can do --> The punishment of being caught out of position is reduced.
On June 14 2013 17:23 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote: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 ... ---- 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: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
Also it is worth nothing that most types of "critical-mass" problem are actually relatively easy to solve by increasing the supply of the unit.
If 25 VR's are unbeatable, then increase the supply of the VR's so the protoss player can only have 15-20.
|
|
|
On June 15 2013 00:26 Hider wrote:
I will quote my posts instead then. But the reason I linked was that the posts are really long. But if you had read (and understood) the second properly you would realize that your 1st and 5th are already adressed in my post. The key is to create a dynamic matchup with the clock switching sides over the course of a game. This means that there is no longer any such thing as a "don't let him get there". Instead, there will be a new concept :"you have to do damage(either direct or indirect) before he gets there".
Your answer to the "how do we do this" is OVERBUFF HARRASS units ... and that is plainly silly, because we see the consequences right now for the Hellbats. If you make harrass units too efficient you could do up to three things:
a. The person who harrasses first wins the game, because he still has economy while his opponent does not. This has nothing to do with player skill and everything with "stupid movie directors and spectators wanting to see more colorful explosions". That isnt what a strategy game should be about.
b. The deathball is made up of the newly overbuffed units instead of the "old unbuffed junk".
c. Games get pretty short.
Your second option for "how do we do this" includes trading armies ... which is really a bad thing, because it puts too much focus on the ability to rebuild your stuff. Zerg has a distinct advantage here and Terrans are the most limited and these racial differences should be kept out of the gameplay equasion as much as possible for this exact reason. They should be flavor, but the fact is that they are deciding games ... every time a commentator says something about "he can not lose that mech army" you know it affects the outcome of the game.
I wont comment on the "Muta/ling stuff" you posted, because I believe a general solution is necessary to this general problem.
-----------
On June 15 2013 00:26 Hider wrote:
Regarding your point 4: Honestly I don't get your point here. I think in my last post I clearly stated that the addition of blink worked as a substitute for kiting. That just prooves that you can still have micro (but a different kind of) without changing the density of units as long as the unit design is good enough. Is your point that it is bad game-design if kiting stalkers isn't rewarding throughout the entire game?
Blink is NOT a substitute for kiting, because with kiting you are running away while still attacking. Yes you take a few shots, but the end result is that your kiting units are alive while the enemy units are dead ... that is what kiting is ... killing stuff without losses by outmaneuvering (= having longer range and greater speed).
The current state of "maximum unit (=dps) concentration and huge armies" makes Blink microing simply unrealistic AND the huge number of units on the battlefield make one-shotting possible and surrounds rather easy, so there is no point to blinking if there is no place to run. You have to have room to maneuver, because you cant kite in a small room ... you need the great wide plains for that and especially the "one-shotting is possible" makes kiting impossible.
You also cant generalize the "kiting works for Stalkers so unit design is still fine with massive numbers" because it doesnt work for all units. Not every unit has a blink (or burrow) option.
EDIT: The most important part about Blink is that it is necessary because they can not fight an equal number of Roaches or Marines face-to-face.
------
On June 14 2013 23:51 dacimvrl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote: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 ... ---- 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: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). TL;DR, do yourself and everyone a favor and just go back to bw or make a mod lol
Do yourself a favor and try to THINK about what I am saying. Here is a good start:
Give me a reason why CRITICAL NUMBER (and the resulting increase of efficiency) is a good thing ti have in the game ... (Are units still "balanced" after they reach a critical number?)
After that fails you have to think about the consequences of having it in the game. Maybe you "get it" in the end.
On June 14 2013 17:51 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:23 Chaggi wrote:On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote: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 ... ---- 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: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 he just wishes we were still playing Brood war unfortunately we have moved on and this is the SC2 forum
No I dont ... and for you the same task as for the other people who dont try to understand my intention:
Give me a reason why CRITICAL NUMBER (and the resulting increase of efficiency) is a good thing to have in the game ... (Are units still "balanced" after they reach a critical number?)
|
On June 15 2013 00:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 08:37 Markwerf wrote:
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. This is true. David Kim still has a very unrefined design philosphy. His philosphy is this; Offense must be better than defense so stalemales don't occur (he said something like this in a SOTG episode). However, that philosphy is only partly true. The thing is; Offense must be efficient, but if the strenght of offense is based on mobility (such as drops), then its potential damage must be limited. The problem in TvP is that if the protoss is slightly caught out of position, a couple of medivacs in the base can end the game. This is poor "match-up"-design as it incentivies the protoss to stay in the base and "defend". So a buff to offense (buff of speed medivacs) is actually counterproductivty in TvP as it rewards passive play from the protoss side. We are seing the same thing in TvT with hellbats where it a player opening bio-tank needs to have a bunker with a tank in each mineral line to defend against a mech'ing terrans potential hellbat drops. This is terrible "match-up"deisgn as the bio heavy player (if he plays well) neutralizies the hellbat drop play, but at the expense of letting the mech'ing terran get an economy of similar strenght (or perhaps even slightly better). When that occurs the bio heavy player can't army trade efficiently anymore, which incenntivies passive play. Instead, great "match-up design" decreases the potential damage that a drop/nydus play/runbuy's can do --> The punishment of being caught out of position is reduced. Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:23 Chaggi wrote:On June 14 2013 15:29 Rabiator wrote: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 ... ---- 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: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 Also it is worth nothing that most types of "critical-mass" problem are actually relatively easy to solve by increasing the supply of the unit. If 25 VR's are unbeatable, then increase the supply of the VR's so the protoss player can only have 15-20.
The first part about the need to balance speed and damage is brilliant.
The second part isnt, because "nerfing" a unit that is powerful when it appears in critical numbers will make it undesriable when you have only very few of them. Only Zerg have the production method to "live with this", because only they can fully switch in one round of production, while the other two races have to suffer a window where they are somewhat vulnerable and badly able to defend themselves.
|
On June 14 2013 07:37 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you think mutas would come back in aggressive ZvT more if widow mines were changed to do single target damage to air, only splash on ground units.
|
Your answer to the "how do we do this" is OVERBUFF HARRASS units ... and that is plainly silly, because we see the consequences right now for the Hellbats. If you make harrass units too efficient you could do up to three things:
a. The person who harrasses first wins the game, because he still has economy while his opponent does not. This has nothing to do with player skill and everything with "stupid movie directors and spectators wanting to see more colorful explosions". That isnt what a strategy game should be about.
b. The deathball is made up of the newly overbuffed units instead of the "old unbuffed junk".
c. Games get pretty short.
Please be aware that this isn't my "answer". That is just one approach a game-designer could take to promote action, and no it isn't silly at all if done correctly. Instead of the "hellbat-apparoch", a game-designer could opt for a lower potential damage output and instead reduce the efficiency of static defenses as "harass-killers".
I would characterize vultures as an example of an approach-1 unit. Think about it: For 75 minerals you get 3 spider mines and an unit which 2-shot probes....... Seems pretty cost-efficient to me.
But overall I do agree that we shouldn't rely too heavily on this approach, but I still think that combining this approach (too a small extent) with the incentive-based approach is optimal.
Your second option for "how do we do this" includes trading armies ... which is really a bad thing, because it puts too much focus on the ability to rebuild your stuff. Zerg has a distinct advantage here and Terrans are the most limited and these racial differences should be kept out of the gameplay equasion as much as possible for this exact reason. They should be flavor, but the fact is that they are deciding games ... every time a commentator says something about "he can not lose that mech army" you know it affects the outcome of the game.
First of all, why do you think players actually attack each other? Do you just think its out of boredom?
If your answer is no, then it either needs to be because they believe they can take a cost-effective trade (approach 1) or because they have such a strong incentivie to army trade that they are willing to take a cost-ineffective trade (approach 2).
Thus in order to promote action you have to adopt at least one of these approaches (or some kind of variation). In BW the anti-mech army was incentivized to army-trade against tanks as tanks scale really well. On the other hand the terran was incentivized to attack before the protoss got a critical mass of carriers.
So every time an attack occurs there is a reason for it, and my theory is that you can define the reason as either belonging to approach 1 or approach 2.
While it is true that production mechanics have an impact on incentivies, its not the only variable that matters. Just look at a typical macro-oriented TvZ game; which race is constantly attacking and trying to army trade?
If you haven't watched HOTS, I can reveal that the answer to the above question is terran. Thus we can conclude that there are other factors than the production mechanicsm which game-designers can vary to obtain the desired incentivie.
Blink is NOT a substitute for kiting, because with kiting you are running away while still attacking. Yes you take a few shots, but the end result is that your kiting units are alive while the enemy units are dead ... that is what kiting is ... killing stuff without losses by outmaneuvering (= having longer range and greater speed).
I think you have misunderstood the definition of substitute. Substitute = Another way to get the same outcome (which is micro in this case). No one is talking about the same type of micro (in fact I specifically pointed out in my first post that it was a different type of micro). Personally i actually enjoy watching blink micro more than kiting micro, so I don't buy your argument.
The second part isnt, because "nerfing" a unit that is powerful when it appears in critical numbers will make it undesriable when you have only very few of them. Only Zerg have the production method to "live with this", because only they can fully switch in one round of production, while the other two races have to suffer a window where they are somewhat vulnerable and badly able to defend themselves.
In most cases that can be fixed by decreasing the cost of the of the unit (or another type of buff) to make it more efficient in smaller numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
