On November 11 2013 07:43 decemberscalm wrote: Doominator
OP + decem, I mean Person G: [Insert summarizing information / rebuttal trying to move discussion forward]
Is that my cue?
I made a quick vod to better show off just how awkward and bad overkill+separation bugs are for the game.
I think you really should take in consideration of not just how one unit perform and how it interacts with other units.
You can show us how fast can muta magic box the thors in a normal ling baneling muta composition vs marine mine thor medivac. how much stronger a thor shot/archon/storm/fungal onto a stacked muta is. how much easier it is for mutas to get in and out.
It looks to me it is just going to make muta extremely powerful at sniping and get out, and extremely volatile due to now being way more vulnerable to thors/storm/fungal/archon, not to mention it is harder to split because you can't use mouse click to seperate them out like you would with marines.
those "awkward" pause is what allows terran to have time to set up a marine traps, more punishable for the zerg player not to just get in and snipe and get out.
You're focusing too much on the muta when you should pay attention to the behavior. It is inconsistent. You're saying you need that "bug" for defense when units really should be responsive and consistent so it can be used for surgical strikes. We want to see players that make something happen, so units have to do what they are told, not "randomly" glitch out when a target dies. Balance is done when you have proper behavior. Damage numbers can always be tweaked.
Exactly. The above poster is yet again complaining about balance when the balance will be sorted out once the unit behaves more fluidly by removing these bugs or micro resistive engine flaws found in the game. Hes missing the actual point. If the mutalisks were more fluid for surgical strikes (i.e. free from the overkill bug and so forth), it would be MUCH more entertaining to see it vs a blink stalker ball because now, the zerg can outmicro your protoss opponent with pure micro alone instead of fighting against this bug and losing mutalisks everytime you engage hence the base trades.
Also a quick question.. does the overkill bug prevent from multiple mutalisk glaives from bouncing off an overkilled unit?
of cause I am talking about balance. you always need counter play in a game.
tell me how can you deal with a 10 viking moving shot clumping as a protoss who went colossus based army? vikings can now dodge storm and take less damage from stalker shots when sniping colossus/any toss air including mothershipe core.
where is the counter play? nothing. the race design lacks that kind of burst anti air unit in mid game. it lacks a unit
again using my muta example, how can a terran zone out mutas?
unless you do lazy patches like stalker now can do +10 against terran vikings, I don't see how you can fix it.
you are basically giving a race something and offers nothing to counter
You are looking at it far too narrow minded. Stacked vikings? one perfect storm = vikings in trouble. Vikings are slow so moving in and out to kite still going to be somewhat hard. In a big engagement you won't have time to kite with vikings unless you want all your bio to die. Plus if this becomes an issue, the range can be nerfed in return for an upgrade that increases its range etc.. Balance can come second. Like the above poster has said, its the principle.
Mutalisks? Easy, if they are stacked liked that, 2 widow mines or 1 thor etc can literally wreak the entire flock or perhaps kill the entire flock. Obviously the movement speed buff the mutalisk got should be reverted back if they are deemed to strong or their regen. All these can be balanced.
The tools are already there to counter these plays. Once again its the principle. Its the idea to allow all races to have units that can be micro-ed to increase its efficiency by ten fold (making the units less restrictive is a good start).
Which principle? Give it a reasonable name.
It's one thing to say we should improve the micro-dependance of the units and balance around it. It's another to call it a principle, as if it was more than a bunch of numbers that you fit arbitrarily to get a wanted effect.
On November 11 2013 16:59 acrimoneyius wrote: Ugh, listening to David Kim's delusional excuse for why they won't implement proposed changes in lalush's video is stomach churning. Good unit control is ONE OF THE FEW things visually exhibited to the casual viewer, who is much more likely to not take as much stock of macro, multi-tasking, decision making, etc unless its explicitly explained by the casters.
I'm pretty sure 99% of the viewers can easily identify the decision whether someone attacks or does not, whether someone builds stargates or robotics, or whether someone builds roaches or banelings. They may not understand why this guy does so, but they see the decision.
On the flipside, I'm kind of sure that even the 98% of the people discussing here pro-decembercalms/Lalush arguments, have not even heard of damage point before. And anybody outside of such forums will probably never hear/think about it, and if such micro was implemented they would probably not identify it as such. They'd probably get their noses pointed to "beautiful micro" by casters, but visually it would not make any difference to them (or most of us). + Show Spoiler +
It would probably still be a good thing. But most people won't realize this particular new micro exists.
Ugh, listening to David Kim's delusional excuse for why they won't implement proposed changes in lalush's video is stomach churning. Good unit control is ONE OF THE FEW things visually exhibited to the casual viewer, who is much more likely to not take as much stock of macro, multi-tasking, decision making, etc unless its explicitly explained by the casters.
It's so disheartening to play/watch this game and experience/see someone losing so frequently to build order counters with less possibility for micro, making said build order counters that much more deterministic.
Id i were senior management at blizzard, id at least replace dk for public questioning/interview duty as every single time he somehow puts his foot in his mouth and looks incompetent.
Hes good at his job thats why he has it, but he is retarded at knowing how to deal with these types of situations and questions.
I think David Kim has a point in that easily visible things should be focused on. The Depth of Micro video does mainly point out the kind of things that are (or rather, lead to plays that are). I'm not sure what his thinking is on how to categorize these.
On November 11 2013 17:37 nighcol wrote: I think David Kim has a point in that easily visible things should be focused on. The Depth of Micro video does mainly point out the kind of things that are (or rather, lead to plays that are). I'm not sure what his thinking is on how to categorize these.
I think it's basically categorising them as criticism and the StarCraft 2 balance and design teams don't take that at all well. Honestly, if you found a bug that crashed the game they would probably defend it at this point.
Ok so, basically I see a lot of people nit picking on LaLush's video for being too monotone, having parts that aren't needed, bad editing and what not. So people don't like the presentation.
But I see lots kind of agree with the principle, that more micro is better. I also seem to see a lot of people unhappy with DK's answer.
Well in this case, why don't you guys, stop arguing with each other over semantics and make a new better version of LaLush's video, with a better presentation and some counter arguments to what DK said, have an optional 2nd video with micro tricks that LaLush showed in BW, and the push it towards Blizzard. If they agree to take a deeper look into it then good, if not, repeat the process and keep pushing however many times its needed to make Blizzard understand that, we are the players and this is how we'd like to play, we've played by your rules by now and we don't like it.
2-3 years ago we didn't know everything we know now about SC2 and the differences between it and BW, now we know, we aren't asking for a complete reboot of BW, we are just asking for the best things that made BW successful to be in SC2, for the reliability, responsiveness and consistency of units and control, to be there. Blizzard can keep their Colossus, so long as it is interesting to micro and control, they can keep the Marauder and the Roach, so long as they are interesting to control and interactive for both sides.
Seriously stop arguing, you've been doing it for 3 years already, start doing something useful, and by useful I mean, more pressure on Blizzard to accept we want these changes.
There's so much misunderstanding in this thread, I think the majority wants skill to be rewarded. I think most would agree that micro is a said skill. It's safe to say: people want more micro. IMO I think incorperating this micro, would be a setback. It would not foster, where SC2 is surperior to SC:BW, but would instead make it a lesser and worse version of SC:BW. Many units with these changes would be ridiculous in numbers, Death balls would be far easier to control, making splitting armies up worse. SC2 is a faster game, but with less mechanics to keep it running smooth. In SC2 it's hard because you need insane reaction and need to be able to harass everywhere, splitting armies up, having units everywhere to defend and using abilities at perfect timing, makes the game beautiful. In SC:BW, what makes it beautiful is the amount of clicks needed, for Micro vs Macro and what does the situation call for and keeping the game running smoothly. So in essence, I would rather like to see more SC2-like added micro to the game, instead of SC:BW-like micro.
On November 11 2013 18:30 ejozl wrote: There's so much misunderstanding in this thread, I think the majority wants skill to be rewarded. I think most would agree that micro is a said skill. It's safe to say: people want more micro. IMO I think incorperating this micro, would be a setback. It would not foster, where SC2 is surperior to SC:BW, but would instead make it a lesser and worse version of SC:BW. Many units with these changes would be ridiculous in numbers, Death balls would be far easier to control, making splitting armies up worse. SC2 is a faster game, but with less mechanics to keep it running smooth. In SC2 it's hard because you need insane reaction and need to be able to harass everywhere, splitting armies up, having units everywhere to defend and using abilities at perfect timing, makes the game beautiful. In SC:BW, what makes it beautiful is the amount of clicks needed, for Micro vs Macro and what does the situation call for and keeping the game running smoothly. So in essence, I would rather like to see more SC2-like added micro to the game, instead of SC:BW-like micro.
There is no such thing as SC2-like micro, there is good micro, like there was in BW and there is bad micro like some of the units we have in SC2, where units are clucky, inconsistent and unreliable. The good micro you see in SC2 is from units that are good more or less BW esque values.
Yes its true that just brute force applying these changes in SC2 would just be bad. But no one is saying we do that, it is possible to fix damage point, clumping, overkill and target priority, and after all that is done you can start reworking the damage, attack speed, speed and HP values to what would be appropriate.
I think you really should take in consideration of not just how one unit perform and how it interacts with other units.
You can show us how fast can muta magic box the thors in a normal ling baneling muta composition vs marine mine thor medivac. how much stronger a thor shot/archon/storm/fungal onto a stacked muta is. how much easier it is for mutas to get in and out.
It looks to me it is just going to make muta extremely powerful at sniping and get out, and extremely volatile due to now being way more vulnerable to thors/storm/fungal/archon, not to mention it is harder to split because you can't use mouse click to seperate them out like you would with marines.
those "awkward" pause is what allows terran to have time to set up a marine traps, more punishable for the zerg player not to just get in and snipe and get out.
You're focusing too much on the muta when you should pay attention to the behavior. It is inconsistent. You're saying you need that "bug" for defense when units really should be responsive and consistent so it can be used for surgical strikes. We want to see players that make something happen, so units have to do what they are told, not "randomly" glitch out when a target dies. Balance is done when you have proper behavior. Damage numbers can always be tweaked.
Exactly. The above poster is yet again complaining about balance when the balance will be sorted out once the unit behaves more fluidly by removing these bugs or micro resistive engine flaws found in the game. Hes missing the actual point. If the mutalisks were more fluid for surgical strikes (i.e. free from the overkill bug and so forth), it would be MUCH more entertaining to see it vs a blink stalker ball because now, the zerg can outmicro your protoss opponent with pure micro alone instead of fighting against this bug and losing mutalisks everytime you engage hence the base trades.
Also a quick question.. does the overkill bug prevent from multiple mutalisk glaives from bouncing off an overkilled unit?
of cause I am talking about balance. you always need counter play in a game.
tell me how can you deal with a 10 viking moving shot clumping as a protoss who went colossus based army? vikings can now dodge storm and take less damage from stalker shots when sniping colossus/any toss air including mothershipe core.
where is the counter play? nothing. the race design lacks that kind of burst anti air unit in mid game. it lacks a unit
again using my muta example, how can a terran zone out mutas?
unless you do lazy patches like stalker now can do +10 against terran vikings, I don't see how you can fix it.
you are basically giving a race something and offers nothing to counter
You are looking at it far too narrow minded. Stacked vikings? one perfect storm = vikings in trouble. Vikings are slow so moving in and out to kite still going to be somewhat hard. In a big engagement you won't have time to kite with vikings unless you want all your bio to die. Plus if this becomes an issue, the range can be nerfed in return for an upgrade that increases its range etc.. Balance can come second. Like the above poster has said, its the principle.
Mutalisks? Easy, if they are stacked liked that, 2 widow mines or 1 thor etc can literally wreak the entire flock or perhaps kill the entire flock. Obviously the movement speed buff the mutalisk got should be reverted back if they are deemed to strong or their regen. All these can be balanced.
The tools are already there to counter these plays. Once again its the principle. Its the idea to allow all races to have units that can be micro-ed to increase its efficiency by ten fold (making the units less restrictive is a good start).
I don't understand.
one moment ago you are telling me how good these micro will be. another post later you are telling me how a stacked muta will just get destroyed by 2 widow mines (I think it's 3 if you want to kill a pack) into more games that look like this: http://i.imgur.com/Ez6X9PX.gif and just one thor shuts down muta stack real hard? Then what's the incentive to do the gliding micro when stacking is so punishable?
as for the vikings, I am talking about flying in to snipe colossus, not engagement. right now the terran position their vikings onto cliffs to get a safe sniping shots while toss use blink stalker and storm to push it back. If vikings are allowed to poke and bait storm with their added mobility, you don't think it will lead to any issue...at all? You said it yourself, viking is slow to moving in and out to kite, but not really when you take out that slight pause in shooting, they don't decelerate anymore.
of cause, like I said before, micro-able units will be good which I am not against this idea. But it doesn't have to come from these units. It can very well be new units from lotv that will lead to more micro from the old units as well.
look at reaper change vs drone micro for example. all it needed was remove tech lab requirement and reworked reaper in terms of its utility.
I am completely open about changing my opinion. if anyone can show me a nice game of starbow where these micro happened and the game was of high quality, I would gladly have a look and see if my opinion has changed
On November 11 2013 17:37 nighcol wrote: I think David Kim has a point in that easily visible things should be focused on. The Depth of Micro video does mainly point out the kind of things that are (or rather, lead to plays that are). I'm not sure what his thinking is on how to categorize these.
I think it's basically categorising them as criticism and the StarCraft 2 balance and design teams don't take that at all well. Honestly, if you found a bug that crashed the game they would probably defend it at this point.
Sadly i agree with this. Especially when BW is used as an example, the SC2 dev. team seem to get offended and they use phrases as "go play BW""we know better" etc.
For all the hate they get, Dustin and David are good at what they do IMO, but they seem to have a massive blind spot at any and all criticism that uses BW as a "how to" example. Arrogance galore IMO and the main reason SC2 is not as good as it could and should have been.
On November 11 2013 17:37 nighcol wrote: I think David Kim has a point in that easily visible things should be focused on. The Depth of Micro video does mainly point out the kind of things that are (or rather, lead to plays that are). I'm not sure what his thinking is on how to categorize these.
I think it's basically categorising them as criticism and the StarCraft 2 balance and design teams don't take that at all well. Honestly, if you found a bug that crashed the game they would probably defend it at this point.
Sadly i agree with this. Especially when BW is used as an example, the SC2 dev. team seem to get offended and they use phrases as "go play BW""we know better" etc.
For all the hate they get, Dustin and David are good at what they do IMO, but they seem to have a massive blind spot at any and all criticism that uses BW as a "how to" example. Arrogance galore IMO and the main reason SC2 is not as good as it could and should have been.
IMO its not about BW its about criticism in general. I also think that the kind of arrogance you mentioned is an indicator for incompetence.
I think you really should take in consideration of not just how one unit perform and how it interacts with other units.
You can show us how fast can muta magic box the thors in a normal ling baneling muta composition vs marine mine thor medivac. how much stronger a thor shot/archon/storm/fungal onto a stacked muta is. how much easier it is for mutas to get in and out.
It looks to me it is just going to make muta extremely powerful at sniping and get out, and extremely volatile due to now being way more vulnerable to thors/storm/fungal/archon, not to mention it is harder to split because you can't use mouse click to seperate them out like you would with marines.
those "awkward" pause is what allows terran to have time to set up a marine traps, more punishable for the zerg player not to just get in and snipe and get out.
You're focusing too much on the muta when you should pay attention to the behavior. It is inconsistent. You're saying you need that "bug" for defense when units really should be responsive and consistent so it can be used for surgical strikes. We want to see players that make something happen, so units have to do what they are told, not "randomly" glitch out when a target dies. Balance is done when you have proper behavior. Damage numbers can always be tweaked.
Exactly. The above poster is yet again complaining about balance when the balance will be sorted out once the unit behaves more fluidly by removing these bugs or micro resistive engine flaws found in the game. Hes missing the actual point. If the mutalisks were more fluid for surgical strikes (i.e. free from the overkill bug and so forth), it would be MUCH more entertaining to see it vs a blink stalker ball because now, the zerg can outmicro your protoss opponent with pure micro alone instead of fighting against this bug and losing mutalisks everytime you engage hence the base trades.
Also a quick question.. does the overkill bug prevent from multiple mutalisk glaives from bouncing off an overkilled unit?
of cause I am talking about balance. you always need counter play in a game.
tell me how can you deal with a 10 viking moving shot clumping as a protoss who went colossus based army? vikings can now dodge storm and take less damage from stalker shots when sniping colossus/any toss air including mothershipe core.
where is the counter play? nothing. the race design lacks that kind of burst anti air unit in mid game. it lacks a unit
again using my muta example, how can a terran zone out mutas?
unless you do lazy patches like stalker now can do +10 against terran vikings, I don't see how you can fix it.
you are basically giving a race something and offers nothing to counter
You are looking at it far too narrow minded. Stacked vikings? one perfect storm = vikings in trouble. Vikings are slow so moving in and out to kite still going to be somewhat hard. In a big engagement you won't have time to kite with vikings unless you want all your bio to die. Plus if this becomes an issue, the range can be nerfed in return for an upgrade that increases its range etc.. Balance can come second. Like the above poster has said, its the principle.
Mutalisks? Easy, if they are stacked liked that, 2 widow mines or 1 thor etc can literally wreak the entire flock or perhaps kill the entire flock. Obviously the movement speed buff the mutalisk got should be reverted back if they are deemed to strong or their regen. All these can be balanced.
The tools are already there to counter these plays. Once again its the principle. Its the idea to allow all races to have units that can be micro-ed to increase its efficiency by ten fold (making the units less restrictive is a good start).
I don't understand.
one moment ago you are telling me how good these micro will be. another post later you are telling me how a stacked muta will just get destroyed by 2 widow mines (I think it's 3 if you want to kill a pack) into more games that look like this: http://i.imgur.com/Ez6X9PX.gif and just one thor shuts down muta stack real hard? Then what's the incentive to do the gliding micro when stacking is so punishable?
as for the vikings, I am talking about flying in to snipe colossus, not engagement. right now the terran position their vikings onto cliffs to get a safe sniping shots while toss use blink stalker and storm to push it back. If vikings are allowed to poke and bait storm with their added mobility, you don't think it will lead to any issue...at all? You said it yourself, viking is slow to moving in and out to kite, but not really when you take out that slight pause in shooting, they don't decelerate anymore.
of cause, like I said before, micro-able units will be good which I am not against this idea. But it doesn't have to come from these units. It can very well be new units from lotv that will lead to more micro from the old units as well.
look at reaper change vs drone micro for example. all it needed was remove tech lab requirement and reworked reaper in terms of its utility.
I am completely open about changing my opinion. if anyone can show me a nice game of starbow where these micro happened and the game was of high quality, I would gladly have a look and see if my opinion has changed
How is this different from archons or science vessels obliterating a muta pack in BW - not to mention that the natural spread of air units can still be varied with these changes to fit whatever blizzard feel is best.
One of the major flaws with SC2 in my opinion is that units are too safe and don't have enough extremes to make them interesting. Siege tanks do less damage than in BW because they don't overkill anymore. In return they have gotten more damage on their unsieged mode, making the interations less interesting. Colossi are basically perfect units, that have only been balanced with the existance of direct counters. Mutalisks have less risks due to their new way of moving and attacking, but also less reward.
Making units in general more risky to use, but with stronger benefits, will encourage micro as counterplay rather than compositions.
Tracking turrets look so cool on tank/immo/hellion. I think even casuals would find them more intuitive.. The way tanks make a full 180° turn every time they want to shoot feels very wrong and unnatural to any eye.
I think you really should take in consideration of not just how one unit perform and how it interacts with other units.
You can show us how fast can muta magic box the thors in a normal ling baneling muta composition vs marine mine thor medivac. how much stronger a thor shot/archon/storm/fungal onto a stacked muta is. how much easier it is for mutas to get in and out.
It looks to me it is just going to make muta extremely powerful at sniping and get out, and extremely volatile due to now being way more vulnerable to thors/storm/fungal/archon, not to mention it is harder to split because you can't use mouse click to seperate them out like you would with marines.
those "awkward" pause is what allows terran to have time to set up a marine traps, more punishable for the zerg player not to just get in and snipe and get out.
You're focusing too much on the muta when you should pay attention to the behavior. It is inconsistent. You're saying you need that "bug" for defense when units really should be responsive and consistent so it can be used for surgical strikes. We want to see players that make something happen, so units have to do what they are told, not "randomly" glitch out when a target dies. Balance is done when you have proper behavior. Damage numbers can always be tweaked.
Exactly. The above poster is yet again complaining about balance when the balance will be sorted out once the unit behaves more fluidly by removing these bugs or micro resistive engine flaws found in the game. Hes missing the actual point. If the mutalisks were more fluid for surgical strikes (i.e. free from the overkill bug and so forth), it would be MUCH more entertaining to see it vs a blink stalker ball because now, the zerg can outmicro your protoss opponent with pure micro alone instead of fighting against this bug and losing mutalisks everytime you engage hence the base trades.
Also a quick question.. does the overkill bug prevent from multiple mutalisk glaives from bouncing off an overkilled unit?
of cause I am talking about balance. you always need counter play in a game.
tell me how can you deal with a 10 viking moving shot clumping as a protoss who went colossus based army? vikings can now dodge storm and take less damage from stalker shots when sniping colossus/any toss air including mothershipe core.
where is the counter play? nothing. the race design lacks that kind of burst anti air unit in mid game. it lacks a unit
again using my muta example, how can a terran zone out mutas?
unless you do lazy patches like stalker now can do +10 against terran vikings, I don't see how you can fix it.
you are basically giving a race something and offers nothing to counter
You are looking at it far too narrow minded. Stacked vikings? one perfect storm = vikings in trouble. Vikings are slow so moving in and out to kite still going to be somewhat hard. In a big engagement you won't have time to kite with vikings unless you want all your bio to die. Plus if this becomes an issue, the range can be nerfed in return for an upgrade that increases its range etc.. Balance can come second. Like the above poster has said, its the principle.
Mutalisks? Easy, if they are stacked liked that, 2 widow mines or 1 thor etc can literally wreak the entire flock or perhaps kill the entire flock. Obviously the movement speed buff the mutalisk got should be reverted back if they are deemed to strong or their regen. All these can be balanced.
The tools are already there to counter these plays. Once again its the principle. Its the idea to allow all races to have units that can be micro-ed to increase its efficiency by ten fold (making the units less restrictive is a good start).
Which principle? Give it a reasonable name.
It's one thing to say we should improve the micro-dependance of the units and balance around it. It's another to call it a principle, as if it was more than a bunch of numbers that you fit arbitrarily to get a wanted effect.
On November 11 2013 16:59 acrimoneyius wrote: Ugh, listening to David Kim's delusional excuse for why they won't implement proposed changes in lalush's video is stomach churning. Good unit control is ONE OF THE FEW things visually exhibited to the casual viewer, who is much more likely to not take as much stock of macro, multi-tasking, decision making, etc unless its explicitly explained by the casters.
I'm pretty sure 99% of the viewers can easily identify the decision whether someone attacks or does not, whether someone builds stargates or robotics, or whether someone builds roaches or banelings. They may not understand why this guy does so, but they see the decision.
On the flipside, I'm kind of sure that even the 98% of the people discussing here pro-decembercalms/Lalush arguments, have not even heard of damage point before. And anybody outside of such forums will probably never hear/think about it, and if such micro was implemented they would probably not identify it as such. They'd probably get their noses pointed to "beautiful micro" by casters, but visually it would not make any difference to them (or most of us). + Show Spoiler +
It would probably still be a good thing. But most people won't realize this particular new micro exists.
That's the value of videos like this and Nony's carrier video, it explains the underlying mechanics behind certain cool acts of micro and how to achieve them. I wasn't aware of aspects of it for sure, but it's laid out pretty well.
We now have better Carriers from a similar campaign, so it can be productive. That said it annoys me that they still didn't 100% fix the Carrier and brought it in because of people spamming and its iconic heritage. Their approach seems a bit inconsistent between 'go play Brood War' and altering units because of their BW status.
I don't understand why the arguments in this thread keep being centered around stacking and such.
You can have the exact same kind of separation as SC2 has right now and still have a functioning moving shot.
My main point is that units should not dead stop because of the arbitrariness of how the engine code was written. They don't have to remove separation. Units can separate in the exact same manner they do now while not dead stopping (if they just review their engine code). I'm 99% sure they did not put in a gliding/deceleration feature in the game in the first place to have it randomly interrupted by some other part of the code.
Same thing goes for the overkill prevention code. There's no reason that the units that don't fire due to overkill prevention shouldn't keep gliding. The fact that they dead stop is just random and arbitrary.
While changing all the other variables I pointed out might not be directly noticed by viewers. I'm rather sure they will indirectly notice the effects.
I think you really should take in consideration of not just how one unit perform and how it interacts with other units.
You can show us how fast can muta magic box the thors in a normal ling baneling muta composition vs marine mine thor medivac. how much stronger a thor shot/archon/storm/fungal onto a stacked muta is. how much easier it is for mutas to get in and out.
It looks to me it is just going to make muta extremely powerful at sniping and get out, and extremely volatile due to now being way more vulnerable to thors/storm/fungal/archon, not to mention it is harder to split because you can't use mouse click to seperate them out like you would with marines.
those "awkward" pause is what allows terran to have time to set up a marine traps, more punishable for the zerg player not to just get in and snipe and get out.
You're focusing too much on the muta when you should pay attention to the behavior. It is inconsistent. You're saying you need that "bug" for defense when units really should be responsive and consistent so it can be used for surgical strikes. We want to see players that make something happen, so units have to do what they are told, not "randomly" glitch out when a target dies. Balance is done when you have proper behavior. Damage numbers can always be tweaked.
Exactly. The above poster is yet again complaining about balance when the balance will be sorted out once the unit behaves more fluidly by removing these bugs or micro resistive engine flaws found in the game. Hes missing the actual point. If the mutalisks were more fluid for surgical strikes (i.e. free from the overkill bug and so forth), it would be MUCH more entertaining to see it vs a blink stalker ball because now, the zerg can outmicro your protoss opponent with pure micro alone instead of fighting against this bug and losing mutalisks everytime you engage hence the base trades.
Also a quick question.. does the overkill bug prevent from multiple mutalisk glaives from bouncing off an overkilled unit?
of cause I am talking about balance. you always need counter play in a game.
tell me how can you deal with a 10 viking moving shot clumping as a protoss who went colossus based army? vikings can now dodge storm and take less damage from stalker shots when sniping colossus/any toss air including mothershipe core.
where is the counter play? nothing. the race design lacks that kind of burst anti air unit in mid game. it lacks a unit
again using my muta example, how can a terran zone out mutas?
unless you do lazy patches like stalker now can do +10 against terran vikings, I don't see how you can fix it.
you are basically giving a race something and offers nothing to counter
You are looking at it far too narrow minded. Stacked vikings? one perfect storm = vikings in trouble. Vikings are slow so moving in and out to kite still going to be somewhat hard. In a big engagement you won't have time to kite with vikings unless you want all your bio to die. Plus if this becomes an issue, the range can be nerfed in return for an upgrade that increases its range etc.. Balance can come second. Like the above poster has said, its the principle.
Mutalisks? Easy, if they are stacked liked that, 2 widow mines or 1 thor etc can literally wreak the entire flock or perhaps kill the entire flock. Obviously the movement speed buff the mutalisk got should be reverted back if they are deemed to strong or their regen. All these can be balanced.
The tools are already there to counter these plays. Once again its the principle. Its the idea to allow all races to have units that can be micro-ed to increase its efficiency by ten fold (making the units less restrictive is a good start).
Which principle? Give it a reasonable name.
It's one thing to say we should improve the micro-dependance of the units and balance around it. It's another to call it a principle, as if it was more than a bunch of numbers that you fit arbitrarily to get a wanted effect.
On November 11 2013 16:59 acrimoneyius wrote: Ugh, listening to David Kim's delusional excuse for why they won't implement proposed changes in lalush's video is stomach churning. Good unit control is ONE OF THE FEW things visually exhibited to the casual viewer, who is much more likely to not take as much stock of macro, multi-tasking, decision making, etc unless its explicitly explained by the casters.
I'm pretty sure 99% of the viewers can easily identify the decision whether someone attacks or does not, whether someone builds stargates or robotics, or whether someone builds roaches or banelings. They may not understand why this guy does so, but they see the decision.
On the flipside, I'm kind of sure that even the 98% of the people discussing here pro-decembercalms/Lalush arguments, have not even heard of damage point before. And anybody outside of such forums will probably never hear/think about it, and if such micro was implemented they would probably not identify it as such. They'd probably get their noses pointed to "beautiful micro" by casters, but visually it would not make any difference to them (or most of us). + Show Spoiler +
It would probably still be a good thing. But most people won't realize this particular new micro exists.
That's the value of videos like this and Nony's carrier video, it explains the underlying mechanics behind certain cool acts of micro and how to achieve them. I wasn't aware of aspects of it for sure, but it's laid out pretty well.
We now have better Carriers from a similar campaign, so it can be productive. That said it annoys me that they still didn't 100% fix the Carrier and brought it in because of people spamming and its iconic heritage. Their approach seems a bit inconsistent between 'go play Brood War' and altering units because of their BW status.
I think Nonys video was also better because it was more focused on a specific topic and shows that the units where different in how they controlled. It was a very "neutral" video that didn't focus on how much "more" awesome BW was. I would have liked to see one focused on the turret change, which seems like the most obtainable.
On November 11 2013 20:35 eXdeath wrote: Tracking turrets look so cool on tank/immo/hellion. I think even casuals would find them more intuitive.. The way tanks make a full 180° turn every time they want to shoot feels very wrong and unnatural to any eye.
Indeed. ive never played bw but to say like DK that these things dont show for the casual viewer is just plain retarded. While not everything talked about in this video may be interesting, surely an intuitive tracking-turret on tanks as well as other units is way better for viewers than the completely RETARDED tanks we have now. Not a single casual player on earth is going to expect tanks to behave the way they do in sc2, so how on earth is that considered good for the casual viewing-experience when the only people knowing how retarded the unit is to micro is the people who play a lot. Ive never thought they were intuitive, nor has anyone else ive ever shown the game to. I mean what is the fucking point of a tracking turret if it cant track...
On November 11 2013 22:35 LaLuSh wrote: I don't understand why the arguments in this thread keep being centered around stacking and such.
You can have the exact same kind of separation as SC2 has right now and still have a functioning moving shot.
My main point is that units should not dead stop because of the arbitrariness of how the engine code was written. They don't have to remove separation. Units can separate in the exact same manner they do now while not dead stopping (if they just review their engine code). I'm 99% sure they did not put in a gliding/deceleration feature in the game in the first place to have it randomly interrupted by some other part of the code.
Same thing goes for the overkill prevention code. There's no reason that the units that don't fire due to overkill prevention shouldn't keep gliding. The fact that they dead stop is just random and arbitrary.
While changing all the other variables I pointed out might not be directly noticed by viewers. I'm rather sure they will indirectly notice the effects.
I agree with you 100%. These inconsistencies are basically undefendable. It's possible they should be separated from the rest of the video and emphasised. This could be done without reference to BW too. It wouldn't be necessary but it might work as a strategy to avoid instant stonewalling from those working on SC2.
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? Edit: I guess they did. Wow. What a terrible explanation by David Kim, very disappointing.
EPT
