EPTDepth of Micro - Page 34
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lightswarm
Canada966 Posts
| ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:35 SC2ShoWTimE wrote: It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo. The modified banshees vs marines in the vid looks incredible easy to do and moving shot is pretty easy to do/learn in sc2 anyway. Every decent player would have great banshee micro with these changes and I dont see how that would be good for the game. It would be like how casters were always saying "great infestor micro" in wol. Maybe it is just me but the only thing I agree with is the point about the turrets. then tweak the damage. If it creates micro and is able to separate good players from bad players, it's always a good thing. Balance will obviously be changed but I don't think that's such a big deal | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:41 Chaggi wrote: then tweak the damage. If it creates micro and is able to separate good players from bad players, it's always a good thing. Balance will obviously be changed but I don't think that's such a big deal This. The wraith in SC2 dealt 8 dmg to ground. Think about that. 8 damage. In Korea I believe they were called paper airplanes because they were so fragile. Wraith's mineral/gas cost was exactly the same as a banshee that deals 12+12 damage. If the banshee is made maneuverable. You don't necessarily need to have it 2 shot workes and marines anymore. Same with viking. Viking wouldn't have been given 9 range in the first place if it were more maneuverable. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 02 2013 22:43 Psychobabas wrote: I feel that these changes have been done on purpose to allow newish players not to get demolished by more experienced players. I don't think so. I'd rather guess that the developers were trying too much to have realistic looks/behaviours and had the thought that certain behaviors (units with more or less damage point, units with longer/shorter turning animations) etc. would differentiate the units more in terms of micro. But I think the reality has proven them wrong, a hydralisk does not require a "different" micro approach than a marine, it simply cannot micro very well since you'd cancel its attacks way too often if you tried. Also, newer players not getting demolished by more experienced players is achieved through the ranking system anyways. So at least now we know that this is not really needed. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:50 LaLuSh wrote: ... And banshees would then become worthless for picking off anything other than workers and marines. Which would be awful for the game, as far as I'm concerned.This. The wraith in SC2 dealt 8 dmg to ground. Think about that. 8 damage. In Korea I believe they were called paper airplanes because they were so fragile. Wraith's mineral/gas cost was exactly the same as a banshee that deals 12+12 damage. If the banshee is made maneuverable. You don't necessarily need to have it 2 shot workes and marines anymore. Same with viking. Viking wouldn't have been given 9 range in the first place if it were more maneuverable. Banshee micro is ALREADY a good way to separate good players from bad players. There is no real middle ground between "horribly overpowered" and "completely useless outside of harass" if you buff the maneuverability this much. On November 02 2013 23:35 SC2ShoWTimE wrote: It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo. The modified banshees vs marines in the vid looks incredible easy to do and moving shot is pretty easy to do/learn in sc2 anyway. Every decent player would have great banshee micro with these changes and I dont see how that would be good for the game. It would be like how casters were always saying "great infestor micro" in wol. Maybe it is just me but the only thing I agree with is the point about the turrets. Not just you, man. Completely how I feel as well. The turret thing would buff units that would currently benefit from more micro capability. The air changes (beyond the simply bug/inconsistency fixes) would either break the units completely or force the units to be nerfed so hard that they'd be useless when not expertly microed. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:35 SC2ShoWTimE wrote: It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo. The modified banshees vs marines in the vid looks incredible easy to do and moving shot is pretty easy to do/learn in sc2 anyway. Every decent player would have great banshee micro with these changes and I dont see how that would be good for the game. It would be like how casters were always saying "great infestor micro" in wol. Maybe it is just me but the only thing I agree with is the point about the turrets. I agree with you. Not "every" (air) unit needs to be able to perform such forms of micro. There are some very good interactions (like the banshee/marine one) that don't need to be touched. But lots of others could be improved on very well with such changes. I think it would be best to look at every case on its own. E.g. I don't think a BC or Broodlords needs a moving shot, they are bigass warships with the intentional downside that it is sluggish. Similarily for the Msc. The banshee is argueable, since it already seems to be in a somewhat fine spot. But would about the viking, the oracle, the corruptor and the carrier. All of them are somewhat agile (the carrier because it does not need to focus on fighting itself) but don't behave this way currently. What about stalkers, colossi, hydralisks or roaches which have incredibly long "standing times" in combats, in which you just watch their combat animations, since moving them would just decrease your damage output. There is lots of units in the game that when you play them, you'd often "overmicro" and just lose efficiency, because you cancel/delay attacks too much with movement/ability triggering (burrow and viking land have such issues as well; they take far too long to trigger; burrowing and unburrowing a roach in combat for the heal is a very inefficient task, because each of those actions doesn't trigger immidiatly; so you will lose lots of shooting time when you do it and thereby not increase the efficiency as much as you'd think) The intention is definitely right, there are far too many units/interactions in the game that could be improved if the units responded faster and their AI would allow you to perform the action you want to perform (moving shot when you want to move and shoot is simply better/smarter than move+stop+shoot+move+stop+shoot). | ||
|
Elldar
Sweden287 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:35 SC2ShoWTimE wrote: It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo. The modified banshees vs marines in the vid looks incredible easy to do and moving shot is pretty easy to do/learn in sc2 anyway. Every decent player would have great banshee micro with these changes and I dont see how that would be good for the game. It would be like how casters were always saying "great infestor micro" in wol. Maybe it is just me but the only thing I agree with is the point about the turrets. If the only thing you had to do was to micro banshees against marines then maybe but you have to do 2-5 different things to not fall behind economically aswell. When stim is finished then it doesn't matter how good your banshee control is. Your argument exist only in the pure banshee marine universe with no stim which probably never happen in a real game and besides the opponent can micro his marines aswell. Minimizing damage until stim/turret is finished. Maybe some openers has to change but I can't see it being that broken as you wish it to be. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:03 RampancyTW wrote: ... And banshees would then become worthless for picking off anything other than workers and marines. Which would be awful for the game, as far as I'm concerned. Banshee micro is ALREADY a good way to separate good players from bad players. There is no real middle ground between "horribly overpowered" and "completely useless outside of harass" if you buff the maneuverability this much. Not just you, man. Completely how I feel as well. The turret thing would buff units that would currently benefit from more micro capability. The air changes (beyond the simply bug/inconsistency fixes) would either break the units completely or force the units to be nerfed so hard that they'd be useless when not expertly microed. Look. You make these ridiculous assertions/predictions like you are somehow able to see into the future and easily deconstruct all the effects of a change like this. Here is my strongest argument, and I want you to answer this directly without going off on a tangent: My argument: In SC2, progamers simply don't feel comfortable performing the same kind of micro as soon as they have more than 2 banshees. You yourself write in your post: "It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo". Fixing dead stops due to separation radius is, to me, about making the exciting micro you yourself are talking about viable with any amount of air units (not just 1 or 2). My question to you: Wouldn't it also be awesome to watch good terran players keep performing this sort of micro throughout the game as opposed to just in the early parts of a game? Or is this micro just reserved as awesome if it occurs exclusively in the parts of a game you arbitrarily deem acceptable? Does it suddenly stop being exciting to you if more than 2 banshees are controlled? Why? | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:03 RampancyTW wrote: ... And banshees would then become worthless for picking off anything other than workers and marines. Which would be awful for the game, as far as I'm concerned. Banshee micro is ALREADY a good way to separate good players from bad players. There is no real middle ground between "horribly overpowered" and "completely useless outside of harass" if you buff the maneuverability this much. Not just you, man. Completely how I feel as well. The turret thing would buff units that would currently benefit from more micro capability. The air changes (beyond the simply bug/inconsistency fixes) would either break the units completely or force the units to be nerfed so hard that they'd be useless when not expertly microed. "...and then this happens and then this happens and this unit will be too strong and then SC2 is dead" That's how I feel about your arguments. Who the hell knows what will happen if Banshees are changed. They might be OP, or they just might be really strong in someone like MKP who focuses on micro, but not really that bad in everyone else's hands. What you seem not to really understand is if you increase the skill of a unit, you have a very wide range of players that use those units. The only time when something is either REALLY good, or REALLY bad, is when there is NO ability to micro. Look at collossi in the hands of a GM player vs someone like Dear or Rain. Do you think you really can tell the difference of who's using what in a giant TvP fight? You really can't. And that's the problem. Furthermore, increasing the microbility of a large number of units is really awesome. If you take a pro (former I guess) like MKP, where he was REALLY good with marine micro, but maybe not so great with banshee micro vs someone like maybe Taeja who's better with banshee micro, but not as good with marine micro, you can start to see separation with strategies. Who doesn't want to see Life being able to have the most amazing Ling micro, while seeing Jaedong focus more on Muta micro and not as much on lings? It's those kinds of things that made BW amazing to watch because every match is different and frankly one of the biggest problems in SC2 because at the end of the day, we've seen in WoL when the metagame stagnates to broodlord/infestor in every MU for Zerg, who the hell wants to watch that? I already know what's going to happen, why should I waste 30 minutes watching Zerg rush to a 12 minute hive and play around with their food/opponent for the next 18 minutes? It's not fun to play, it's not fun to watch and it's awful for the game. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:20 LaLuSh wrote: I fully support the bolded changes. As I mentioned in the exact same post. Jesus Christ. Of course I want the dead stops and other bugs/inconsistencies sorted out.Look. You make these ridiculous assertions/predictions like you are somehow able to see into the future and easily deconstruct all the effects of a change like this. Here is my strongest argument, and I want you to answer this directly without going off on a tangent: My argument: In SC2, progamers simply don't feel comfortable performing the same kind of micro as soon as they have more than 2 banshees. You yourself write in your post: "It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo". Fixing dead stops due to separation radius is, to me, about making the exciting micro you yourself are talking about viable with any amount of air units (not just 1 or 2). My question to you: Wouldn't it also be awesome to watch good terran players keep performing this sort of micro throughout the game as opposed to just in the early parts of a game? Or is this micro just reserved as awesome if it occurs exclusively in the parts of a game you arbitrarily deem acceptable? Does it suddenly stop being exciting to you if more than 2 banshees are controlled? Why? Edit: Also, nerfing the Banshee to near-Wraith levels would of course lead to negative repercussions for its other uses. That doesn't require seeing the future, that requires having any non-zero amount of capacity for thought. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Great video LaLush, reminds me of when I played multiplayer on the Starcraft Demo and everyone just went mass wraiths because lol cloak. | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
[Warning: BW reference incoming] In BW, if you sent a unit to attack unmicroed, it would do somewhere between a bad job to an adequate job. In SC2, beyond the initial engagement position and some other things, common units do the best possible job. In BW, that difference between the efficiency of ignored units versus controlled units caused the player to have to make decisions on how to spend her time. In SC2, with more powerful macro UI, the decisions of where to spend time could and should fall more on micro. And I think that's the exciting potential of SC2. It would to add another ball to juggle, but more importantly, it would generate some really sexy VOD highlights. Now, let's take it all the way back to the olden days of BW and Slayers Boxer. The game was played at a micro level, because that was and is the most apparent aspect of the game. And that's where you get casuals hooked on the game. It's the SportsCenter-type highlights that gets new players interested. It's not until you get good and educated that you appreciate the subtleties of economic builds or tech choices. I will leave you with one last thought: Comeback potential! Who doesn't want to see some really gifted player fight her way back from the brink of defeat with sick micro? I do! | ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:20 LaLuSh wrote: Look. You make these ridiculous assertions/predictions like you are somehow able to see into the future and easily deconstruct all the effects of a change like this. Here is my strongest argument, and I want you to answer this directly without going off on a tangent: My argument: In SC2, progamers simply don't feel comfortable performing the same kind of micro as soon as they have more than 2 banshees. You yourself write in your post: "It is awesome to watch good terran players control their banshees against marines right now imo". Fixing dead stops due to separation radius is, to me, about making the exciting micro you yourself are talking about viable with any amount of air units (not just 1 or 2). My question to you: Wouldn't it also be awesome to watch good terran players keep performing this sort of micro throughout the game as opposed to just in the early parts of a game? Or is this micro just reserved as awesome if it occurs exclusively in the parts of a game you arbitrarily deem acceptable? Does it suddenly stop being exciting to you if more than 2 banshees are controlled? Why? It's not that they don't feel comfortable micro-ing two banshee, it is them phrasing out banshee from the unit composition. If you watch mech TvZ in WoL, the banshees do get continued to be micro'd because there is less chance of them getting sniped off. Mvp gets even upto 5 banshees in some games. Thorzain TvZ WoL mech always used banshee to snipe off retreating roaches and drones. Watch games where the Terran got all-ined by zerg but still somehow stayed alive and counter with a cloak banshee, that banshee will get micro'd. You stop getting them is because you want to save the resource for a stronger unit composition. Not a whole lot different from hellions/reaper in this sense. And Your question is specially designed to make the answer to be a Yes. Who won't want to see more awesome micro throughout the game? I can restate this into a soccer term: "Who won't want the soccer players to stop being so passive when they are ahead of the game? Is action supposed to only happen when you are behind or even in score?" Some units are meant for certain stages/situations of the game. You might be able to increase their function and make them more viable in other stages but you have to basically revamp the whole game because you are changing that unit in all matchups, which means other race's counter units have to get better (either in form of buff, or production rate or cost or production time) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 03 2013 01:01 ETisME wrote: It's not that they don't feel comfortable micro-ing two banshee, it is them phrasing out banshee from the unit composition. If you watch mech TvZ in WoL, the banshees do get continued to be micro'd because there is less chance of them getting sniped off. Mvp gets even upto 5 banshees in some games. Thorzain TvZ WoL mech always used banshee to snipe off retreating roaches and drones. Watch games where the Terran got all-ined by zerg but still somehow stayed alive and counter with a cloak banshee, that banshee will get micro'd. You stop getting them is because you want to save the resource for a stronger unit composition. Not a whole lot different from hellions/reaper in this sense. And Your question is specially designed to make the answer to be a Yes. Who won't want to see more awesome micro throughout the game? I can restate this into a soccer term: "Who won't want the soccer players to stop being so passive when they are ahead of the game? Is action supposed to only happen when you are behind or even in score?" Some units are meant for certain stages/situations of the game. You might be able to increase their function and make them more viable in other stages but you have to basically revamp the whole game because you are changing that unit in all matchups, which means other race's counter units have to get better (either in form of buff, or production rate or cost or production time) I think what he is saying is not that you'd continue making banshee's, but that (m)any unit(s) would be capable of being microed that way and therefore you would see such mirco throughout all of the game. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
these are all changes that will make the game more exciting, you've admitted as much in several posts but you fear blizzard will be unable to get the balance right so you'd rather have a game devoid of elements that make up the core of esports (opportunities for great plays, ways to differentiate one player from another, unit personalities and all the rest) simply because you fear change and the possibility of balance getting screwed up and never repaired thats bunker mentality and it's just sad so what if banshees (edit: and whatever other unit, don't focus on the example please) would have to be rebalanced completely because keeping their insane damage while enabling players to actually control them properly would be retarded do it right and you've got yourself a great game again, one that can actually glue people to their screens like broodwar once did and the mobas now do if you never try, you better be content to simply fade away | ||
|
Beakyboo
United States485 Posts
"More microable" =\= automatically better for the game. You always work within the limitations that you're given. Microing air units is already a large apm tax, and this would have little effect on that. Making the units potentially more effective isn't necessarily better. I'm not sure that having tons of air units with potential to endlessly kite without taking damage is the epitome of fascinating unit interactions. It just looks stupid too. | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
Do not make the mistake of projecting the current suggestions onto the current state of game balance. Blizzard will notjust throw in massive game-changing adjustments without carefully testing, evaluating, and possibly altering these suggestions. To follow it up, it is key to get your thoughts across via constructive criticism and arguments. Sitting here replying with the same arguments without adjusting and adapting to constructive arguments of other posters is a waste of this thread and topic at hand. This is the kind of argument that just isn't constructive at all: + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + On November 01 2013 23:20 RampancyTW wrote: ...Which would then lead to other issues, which would lead to further rebalancings, which we lead to other issues, etc... You'd pretty much turn the game upside down. Unique features of the Viking (like its long range) would have to be eliminated. You'd change a lot of early game interactions with regards to tech and whatnot. For what purpose? More "depth"? A higher skill ceiling? There's no valid way to just assume a game will be deeper because you make a few units more microable. And the skill ceiling still hasn't been reached, so we have no way of knowing how high or low it is. What I DO know is people have been claiming that we've been at the skill ceiling since early 2011, and players still somehow manage to keep getting better. Original response: And this is why it should be tested extensively if the suggested alterations are considered. Furthermore a good timing to test more extreme things, even if it turns out to be non-functional for the game, is a beta phase of an expansion. Be it inhouse or open beta. It often helps to test some extremes from time to time in order to figure out if something will add or detract value from the game. If new units will be added in LotV which will reset the strategy, the same process you just described will occur as well, just in a milder fashion. If you worry about the end result before even evaluating if it would work, and how big of an impact it really has on the game design, you might as well never test changes or new units, maps (think Red Bull TLMC). Consider > test if interested > evaluate > possibly implement in the current form, or in an altered form. Edit: And to the poster above me, I agree to a certain extent, but I feel you leave out a few considerations. If you want to pull off some amazing micro, even with these suggested changes in their current form, you'll have to spend a lot of your effort and time on controlling, micro. Of course you can now make units more effective, but because you'll have to babysit them, other tasks will suffer slightly. It just allows good players to put more personality and style into their play and be known better for certain moves. And as you hinted towards, keep in mind that there is a physical limit that prevents us from pulling the crazy stuff a bot can do. The fastest players currently like Innovation, are near the peak of speed and multitasking reachable. There just isn't a lot to add, which strengthens the argument that added micro potential comes with a big con as well: more actions spent on micro = less actions left for other actions. But there is more of a choice, more opportunities to distinguish and add flavor to ones play. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:00 Beakyboo wrote: It's not like you'd suddenly have packs of banshees kiting marines the whole game long if you changed this. I'd argue that difficulty in microing packs of banshees is the least of reasons that they get phased out. They get phased out because a whole ton of crap starts to come out pretty quickly that shuts them down. Turrets, stim, vikings, ravens, w/e. "More microable" =\= automatically better for the game. You always work within the limitations that you're given. Microing air units is already a large apm tax, and this would have little effect on that. Making the units potentially more effective isn't necessarily better. I'm not sure that having tons of air units with potential to endlessly kite without taking damage is the epitome of fascinating unit interactions. It just looks stupid too. If the community managed to get over abduct and ignite afterburners then nothing will look stupid to them. | ||
|
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
The only criticism I have is that it was only compiled in HotS. Imagine this in beta or WoL. Very insightful by LaLuSh. LaLuSh hwaiting. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:03 RampancyTW wrote: Banshee micro is ALREADY a good way to separate good players from bad players. There is no real middle ground between "horribly overpowered" and "completely useless outside of harass" if you buff the maneuverability this much. I'm curious to hear why you think this is the case, considering that all of the relevant properties can be tuned to extremely high levels of granularity. (Damage, range, all of the values that control maneuverability, etc.) It's not clear at all that there have to be hard thresholds that define huge jumps in a unit's effectiveness, since SC is not played on "Banshee vs. Marine" micro maps. The unit has to interact with the entire rest of the game. I assume you are stating this as a general/theoretical principle. If you are instead claiming that there's no good middle ground for a unit that, aside from maneuverability changes, has the exact same properties as the current Banshee, then that's not a very compelling counterargument, even if it were true. | ||
| ||
