|
On November 13 2014 01:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I think you could make units like roaches as interesting as marines and stalkers just superior by removing damage point and fiddling with the one or other interaction. Hmm, while I think you can make the Roach feel a bit better without any damage point - as there will be more scenarios where you can attack and then move to the right, left or back afterward - I still don't think it would feel as good as the Marine. I believe movement speed and range are also variables that are important for the micro, and it's why I would also prefer a slightly less cost-efficient Roach, but make both it and the Zealot faster. In general, if a unit has less range, it needs faster movement speed in order to encourage the same amount of micro. Marine has 3.5 movement speed and 5 range when stimmed, while Speed Roaches off creep only has 3 movement speed and 4 range (I think). In general, I believe Sc2 would benefit w/ multiple units being both faster and more responsive. Ideally, speed Roaches would have a movement speed of around 3.5 off-creep with a lower boost on creep. Zealot charge should either be removed or it should be made a lot more powerful in the hands of a good player. If it's removed, I think speed-Zealots could move around 3.75. With such a high movement speed, infinite kiting won't be as strong vs Zealots while a decent protoss player has more opportunities for moving around with the Zealot.
Yeah, that's what I meant with "fiddling with the one or other interaction". Like the damage point alone is nice, but it only becomes really interesting when the balancing against units like banelings/zealots makes it so that you actually have to use it well. I think roaches could be very interesting against:
zealots
banelings
marines
hellbats
hellions
and at least improved vs every other units. But currently the 4 range of roaches makes it so that you hit without having to micro foward a lot when fighting hellions/marines (and to a lesser extend stalkers etc.).
And their other stats so that they are often just very good against units like zealots or banelings regardless of micro while the damage point prevents a lot of micro to begin with.
I'd rather have a roach with something like:
3 or 3.5range
no damage point
2armor
125-135 hit points
burrow delay removed
|
burrow delay removed
Ahh yes.. Roach probably has the least Burrow delay, but adjusting this stat can actually make Burrow Micro a thing.
I'd love to see that..
|
|
|
On November 13 2014 00:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. Unlike other units they don't have a stupid damage point. Also their early game vs units like stalkers or banshees that barely outrange marines is quite interesting. And then medivacs are very interesting which just makes for a great combination with all bio, so marine play becomes cool. I think you could make units like roaches as interesting as marines and stalkers just superior by removing damage point and fiddling with the one or other interaction. But given that this isn't the case I think marines are often just more interesting to watch. Also they are way cooler to watch because they are guys and not some forms of monsters. People love their zealot/marine type of humanly looking units. You can connect to them much easier than to a roach, zergling or stalker.
Dunno why you say damage point is stupid.
I argue and say that damagepoint and backswing encourage better micro scenarious since it makes countermicro possible and more practical.
Lets imagine zealots moved as fast as stimmed marines. The zealots would have little to no chance. Very one sided.
Add a backswing to both units(delay after attacking) and it would make the battle more micro-intensive.
I believe roach would be alot more fun to watch than the marine if zerg didnt have this larva inject and fights were more even vs the roach.
|
On November 13 2014 01:30 ejozl wrote:Ahh yes.. Roach probably has the least Burrow delay, but adjusting this stat can actually make Burrow Micro a thing. I'd love to see that..
The delays of many of the variable that Blizzard puts in is such a big mystery. Jakatak also put up a video where he talked about the 1.5 second delay on lifting up buildings. Why on earth is that in the game? There is even a delay with raising supply depots (???)
Or what about the transformation mechanics. Why wouldn't Blizzard try and encourage more useage of Vikings transformation or Thor's transformation? Why does this have to take 4 seconds?
And why on earth would Blizzard opt to increase the range of the Banshee in order to make the moving shot better (this was what David Kim said)? The banshee has a damage point right now, which means it needs to stand still for 0.16 seconds before it can attack. Why not remove that, and then the 7 range will be unnecesary.
While not directly a delay, the low acceleration of the Oracle is also a big mystery. It just makes the unit a mess to control and instead it gets balanced around insanely high DPS vs light. I don't believe anyone would prefer this tradeoff over a classical moving-shot air unit.
In many ways, all of the delay-variables Blizzard has put into the game kinda signals that they are afraid that the game would be "imbalanced" if the micro-skill cap is too high. But here is an area where the overused "if everything is OP, then the game is balanced"-sentence makes sense. If all races have opportunities to react through micro to what the enemy is doing, then the skill-cap will be infinitive for all races and you have a solid foundation for balancing the game.
On the other hand, it's pretty limited how you can micro your units if they have to stand still during an engagement due to the high damage point.
|
On November 13 2014 01:33 pure.Wasted wrote:
What's a damage point?
The delay between an attack starting and finishing. Marines have 0, so you can shoot and immidiatly run again with them. Most other units have some default value (like 0.16sec or so), so if you micro them fast you cancel their attack all the time. Basically the units always have to stand for some time to attack while marines with automaton micro just dont stop.
|
On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing)
But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro.
Almost no unit microes against the marine.
|
On November 13 2014 01:36 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 00:55 Big J wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. Unlike other units they don't have a stupid damage point. Also their early game vs units like stalkers or banshees that barely outrange marines is quite interesting. And then medivacs are very interesting which just makes for a great combination with all bio, so marine play becomes cool. I think you could make units like roaches as interesting as marines and stalkers just superior by removing damage point and fiddling with the one or other interaction. But given that this isn't the case I think marines are often just more interesting to watch. Also they are way cooler to watch because they are guys and not some forms of monsters. People love their zealot/marine type of humanly looking units. You can connect to them much easier than to a roach, zergling or stalker. Dunno why you say damage point is stupid. I argue and say that damagepoint and backswing encourage better micro scenarious since it makes countermicro possible and more practical. Lets imagine zealots moved as fast as stimmed marines. The zealots would have little to no chance. Very one sided. Add a backswing to both units(delay after attacking) and it would make the battle more micro-intensive. I believe roach would be alot more fun to watch than the marine if zerg didnt have this larva inject and fights were more even vs the roach.
I think it is way more fun to micro units without damage point. You get a direct reward for being fast. Given that it is absolutely impossible in SC2 to actually dont stop while kiting there is a natural backswing anyways. Yet that one is skilldependend.
If you cannot reach a kiting unit in SC2 a damage point would help, but the underlying problem is just the discrepancy of rang/speed in such a unit interaction. (What Hider says below about zealots and marines)
Not all damage points are stupid. But I don't like them on units that are movers-shooters unless there is a really good reason for it, say for a collossus.
|
Lets imagine zealots moved as fast as stimmed marines. The zealots would have little to no chance. Very one sided.
High damage point + similar movement speed --> Your rewarded for standing still with the Marine during an engagement.
Low damage point + similar movement speed --> Constant kiting is rewarded
Low damage point + assymetrical movement speed (zealot faster than Marine) --> Your rewarded for moving the Marine around without constant kiting being dominant.
The latter is by far the best foundation for creating fun micro interactions in my opinion. That's why meele units such as Zealots and Ultralisks should be faster while ranged units - for the most part - should have 0 damage point.
Not all damage points are stupid. But I don't like them on units that are movers-shooters unless there is a really good reason for it, say for a collossus.
Yeh I remember testing Hellion vs Speedling with 0 damage point, and suddenly hellions were like 2-3 times more cost-effective which obviosly was broken.. The effects of making Speedlings sligthly faster or Hellions only partially offset the assymetry.
But for all other units, it's very easy to balance the game around 0 damage point (only small adjustments to speed/range must be made).
If we look at the Collosus, I think 0 damage point + 7 range is similar balance-wise as 8 range + 0.16 damage point. Biggest difference is that with the former, the Collosus needs to get slightly further into danger-zone for a short while. If the enemy is good, he can take advantage of this, while a good protoss player will pull the Collosus back immediately after attacking.
In my opinion, the 0 damage point + lower range is superior.
|
On November 13 2014 01:47 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing) But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro. Almost no unit microes against the marine.
Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"?
|
On November 08 2014 04:42 Charoisaur wrote:
Sry but this sounds terrible. not buying lotv if this is true
I agree. Most changes sound like bs.
|
Playing with acceleration speed can make some interesting micro. Banshee micro is great as it is, i think more range just reduce the micro potential. It break the micro interaction between banshees and marines, to name an example.
Maybe a ground unit with some nice stop command micro would be better than the cyclone.
|
Banshee micro is great as it is, i think more range just reduce the micro potential. It break the micro interaction between banshees and marines, to name an example.
True, but when why would you opt for 7 range on the Banshee?
David Kim directly said that he wanted to make moving shot from the Banshee better, so why not just max out its responsiveness instead of increasing its range?
I do agree that the level of responsiveness should be made on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations, having lower acceleration/turn-rates/damage-point, improves the interaction. But there are so many scenarios where it only prevents micro, and Blizzard could improve the micro interactions in the game so much by reevaluating the stats of the units.
Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"?
So, you didn't ask that to me, but I think I can still answer it. Instead of microing your whole army the same way, it would be preferable if you was rewarded for only pulling back the units that are being targeted ("individual micro") rather than kite with your entire army.
However, that's not what changing the damage point accomplishes. Instead, a higher damage point makes any type of movement during an engement less rewarded. So it penalitizes both "kiting with your whole army" and "indiviudal micro".
In order to encourage more of the latter, setting the damage point at 0, and tweaking out other variables is the desired approach.
Turn-rate on the other hand can accomplish more "individual micro", but on the other hand a turn-delay feels like playing with input-delay, and thus must be the last-resort solution.
Instead, I prefer to reward "inidivudal micro" with unit/ability-design (such as banelings - there are other approaches which can be taken here, but it would take a while to discuss them).
Moreover, I actually believe the Sc2 protoss-approach with having more expensive units is somewhat superior to the BW-approach with mass Dragoons. The former creates some obvious target-fire scenarios, and if the Immortal and the Collosus can be designed properly, you can have some really fun interactions that is focussed on moving back indiviudal units.
|
On November 13 2014 01:56 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 01:47 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing) But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro. Almost no unit microes against the marine. Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"?
Instead of amove zealot vs kite marine you want the zealot and the marine to be stutterstepped, whereas the Marine has 0 damage point but the zealot moves faster.
If I understood correctly
|
On November 13 2014 01:56 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 01:47 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing) But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro. Almost no unit microes against the marine. Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"?
An extreme example would be stim marine vs no-charge zealot. There is just nothing the zealot can do to attack the marine more often or to disengage from the battle because the marine can always just stay out of the 0.25zealot range while staying within 5range to the zealot.
If we look at something like banelings vs marines, the marines can kite and are rewarded for it but not infinitely with human micro. The banelings eventually reach them. However, by splitting they can still make it inefficient for the banelings to be a-moved into them. Here the zerg player has to countermicro with movecommands and targetting his banelings on bigger clumps.
I think two units on their own usually only make for so much micro. But they make for good fundamentals. If we now add widow mines that punish clumping banelings and marauders that punish a-moving and bad targetting the situation becomes more interesting. If we add zerglings to surround and mess up the movement, bait the WM shots and kill overly split units and frontline maruaders it becomes really interesting.
That's because basically every unit in those compositions has some interesting micro interaction against each other. But a unit that is faster/higher range than another only has a one-way micro which is that said unit is untouchable unless the micro gets messed up.
|
On November 13 2014 02:02 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 04:42 Charoisaur wrote:
Sry but this sounds terrible. not buying lotv if this is true I agree. Most changes sound like bs.
A lot of things definitely seem stupid, but don't worry, the game will be fine. Remember HotS announcement -replicant, shredder, warhound, etc. Absolutely dreadful. Was HotS terrible in the end ? No. I think we should just acknowledge they're really trying to push the game to its limits, which is nice. Maybe they won't change the way eco works for instance in the end, but seeing them willing to experiment is nice. And once again, don't worry, the final expansion will be good. No point for Blizzard scrapping this game over.
|
On November 13 2014 02:20 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 01:56 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 01:47 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 00:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 00:48 Foxxan wrote:It helps that Marines are very interesting to begin with Not sure in what way marines are interesting to begin with? The interaction for the marine vs other units arent great. I cant think of any other unit which interacts with the marine other than the baneling vs marine. I'd say almost every unit interacts well with the Marine because of the Marine's insane microability, which is what makes them interesting units. Melee units encourage kiting or positional play (defensive chokes in minerals), banes/WM/Storm encourage splitting and different positional play (spread out engagements), Mutalisks encourage hot dropping Marines one by one to maximize damage output/save Medivacs. Enemy Tank splash encourages dropping suicide Marine bombs. (Hellbats have supplanted this role in HOTS because they don't die when they do it, but this used to be a thing) But when you look at micro, you need to look at micro vs micro. Almost no unit microes against the marine. Can you give me some examples of what constitutes "micro vs micro"? Instead of amove zealot vs kite marine you want the zealot and the marine to be stutterstepped, whereas the Marine has 0 damage point but the zealot moves faster. If I understood correctly
I think it's the same point I tried to make earlier. If the Marine player micros, the zealot player has no real way of reacting to that. He just watchess as his zealots get slaughtered - pulling them back will result in them getting hit anyway.
|
That sounds like an example of 'one player’s micro performance is more important than the other' which is something they are trying to remove in LoTV.
"Micro opportunities on both sides
Create more significant counter-micro opportunities and lessen situations where one player’s micro performance is more important than the other."
|
On November 13 2014 02:59 mishimaBeef wrote:
That sounds like an example of 'one player’s micro performance is more important than the other' which is something they are trying to remove in LoTV.
"Micro opportunities on both sides
Create more significant counter-micro opportunities and lessen situations where one player’s micro performance is more important than the other."
Exactly. However they're not removing it, they're just adding units that don't have that issue. Old units will still have that if they don't change them drastically.
|
Another thing that has gone completley unnoticed is that the Blizzard dev-team still didn't understand what Lalush was talking about when he mentioned seperation radius.
At the multiplayer-panel, they said that seperation-radius was an unintuive way of rewarding moving shot. But the reason Lalush brought up seperation-radius was due to a "bug" in the Starcraft editor where air units will prioritize seperating before attacking. Therefore having multiple air units makes a moving shot less practical. A low sepeartion radius is therefore just a band-aid fix, but shouldn't be seen as the best solution.
Blizzard could therefore improve the moving shot while maintaining a higher seperation radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
