|
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.
Yeah, damage point is usually not great at range vs melee.
Backswing is the way to go there.
What is your analysis with backswing on lets say marines vs zealots.
And if we look at broodwar, dragoons vs dragoons.
The dragoon has an attackpoint. This creates a pretty cool interaction just by adding this.
If we look at marauder without stimpack use, they have no attackpoint.
What is more interesting to watch? You think its pretty much the same in how the interactions are or does any of these examples feel better?
If we go further, to more extreme examples.
Another example in broodwar:
Dragoons vs vultures(spidermines). Since dragoons has an attackpoint, this creates this scenario where the dragoon has to stand still before making its attack. At the same time, the dragoon needs to stay away from the spidermines that the vultures lay.
If we remove the attackpoint here, then this kinda ruins this interaction? Or what u say?
Since now, dragoons simple attack->move immediately->Less decision for protoss and much harder to lay mines.
You think this could be solved by having spidermines trigger faster? I am not sure its possible to make the interaction better here if there is no attackpoint, even if spidermines trigger faster?
Maybe would be possible to make the spidermine different to create a good scenario vs goons-with-no-attackpoint?
|
Backswing is the way to go there.
What is your analysis with backswing on lets say marines vs zealots.
I am open for the idea that the backwing which Decemberscalm has created could potentially create some better microinteractions. But I don't know the exact effects of it. I learn about the effects of various variables by testing it in the editor and then evaluate the effects on various micro interactions. The backswing that is in the editor can be cancelled by moving the unit, so I cannot test this.
If Blizzard is not willing to change how seperation radius works in the starcraft editor, then I also doubt they will be willing to rework how the backswing variable works.
In general, I also prefer to have max level of responsiveness and then create "indiviudal microinteractions" based on that. Ceteris paribus, it's just more fun to control units that respond instantly to what you do. So if you can create scenarios where indiviudal micro is rewarded while maintaining max responsiveness, I will generally prefer that solution.
So I would first look at designing abilities around max responsiveness, and instead I would probably add backswing on a case-by-case basis to make some of the units "feel" different. Obviously if all of the units reacted the same way, it would also be boring, so it's important to not have max responsiveness everywhere, but to tweak it in scenarios where it makes sense.
Dragoons vs vultures(spidermines). Since dragoons has an attackpoint, this creates this scenario where the dragoon has to stand still before making its attack. At the same time, the dragoon needs to stay away from the spidermines that the vultures lay.
Yeh, but but I would create the interaction based on 0 damage point, which would require that Vultures could place Spider Mines faster. The balance of the interaction should be similar, but I would fine more enjoyment as both the terran- and protoss when it's balanced around as little delay as possible.
|
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't.
|
On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't.
Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37.
Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second.
Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything.
Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard.
Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro.
Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit).
Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro.
You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved.
Yeh, but but I would create the interaction based on 0 damage point, which would that Vultures could place Spider Mines faster. The balance of the interaction should be similar, while I would fine more enjoyment as both the terran- and protoss when it's balanced around as little delay as possible.
I think thats an issue. Since the interaction would be bad this way.
Dragoons would never in that fight have to stand still. Always move, attack,move-<instantly.
This would mean spidermines need to trigger fast as hell or redesign the spidermines. I cant come up with anything that resembles the attackpoint on the dragoons. I was asking if you could think of something here, since i dont think removing the attackpoint on the dragoons and making spidermines trigger faster makes the interaction better, i think it would make it worse.
|
I think thats an issue. Since the interaction would be bad this way.
Dragoons would never in that fight have to stand still. Always move, attack,move-<instantly.
This would mean spidermines need to trigger fast as hell or redesign the spidermines. I cant come up with anything that resembles the attackpoint on the dragoons. I was asking if you could think of something here, since i dont think removing the attackpoint on the dragoons and making spidermines trigger faster makes the interaction better, i think it would make it worse.
Are you talking about Dragoons being rewarded for kiting Vultures infinitely? That's already what they will do now vs Vultures, unless Vultures manages to put Spider mines behind them.
The effect of removing the damage point is that Dragoons will be able to kite X% better. But why can't you balance that around Spider Mines being able to be placed faster as well? If it takes 1 second now, then reduce it to 0.5 seconds (?) Or you could potentially add a slightly higher casting-range to the Spider Mine.
Why would that make the interaction worse? From my perspective, you just give players - who are skilled - more opportunities for controling their units. When units are being locked for like 40% of the duration of the engagement, there is less way for a skilled player to differentiate him from an unskilled player. If you reduce that to 20%, and maintain the interaction, you give skilled players more room.
|
On November 13 2014 03:45 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I think thats an issue. Since the interaction would be bad this way.
Dragoons would never in that fight have to stand still. Always move, attack,move-<instantly.
This would mean spidermines need to trigger fast as hell or redesign the spidermines. I cant come up with anything that resembles the attackpoint on the dragoons. I was asking if you could think of something here, since i dont think removing the attackpoint on the dragoons and making spidermines trigger faster makes the interaction better, i think it would make it worse. Are you talking about Dragoons being rewarded for kiting Vultures infinitely? That's already what they will do now vs Vultures, unless Vultures manages to put Spider mines behind them. The effect of removing the damage point is that Dragoons will be able to kite X% better. But why can't you balance that around Spider Mines being able to be placed faster as well? If it takes 1 second now, then reduce it to 0.5 seconds (?) Or you could potentially add a slightly higher casting-range to the Spider Mine. Why would that make the interaction worse? From my perspective, you just give players - who are skilled - more opportunities for controling their units. When units are being locked for like 40% of the duration of the engagement, there is less way for a skilled player to differentiate him from an unskilled player. If you reduce that to 20%, and maintain the interaction, you give skilled players more room.
Vulture lays a mine close to the dragoon, the goon move backward and makes an attack.
But what if the terran player is fast to anticipate this and lays another mine where the dragoon moves->Now the dragoon needs to move further back without ever doing damage.
With the attackpoint gone, the attack can be made with no risk involved. And alot less interaction to.
If we look at vultures and spidermines vs dragoons. There is a difference here thanks to the attackpoint compared to no attackpoint.
The goons dont attack->moves all the same direction->attack->repeat.
The effecient way is to spread them out a bit, move them in packs. Individual micro is required(or atleast select 2 or 3goons at the same time)
If we compare this to no attackpoint. The goons will simple attack->move backwards all the same direction->attack->repeat
Exactly the same way marines play.
EDIT:
Iam trying to look at this and i have a hard time picturing it.
Maybe you are right that its indeed possible to have the exact same interaction without attackpoint.
|
Vulture lays a mine close to the dragoon, the goon move backward and makes an attack.
But what if the terran player is fast to anticipate this and lays another mine where the dragoon moves->Now the dragoon needs to move further back without ever doing damage.
Remember, the reason why we are reducing spider mine plant-time in the first place; it's because Dragoons can start to move faster. So if Dragoon stands still for X seconds, but plant-time takes x seconds more as well, then the terran will be able to place the same amount of spider miens around the Dragoon.
As an extreme hypothetical example, imagine the Dragoon stood still for 3 seconds after attacking, but Spider Mine plant time is unchanged. It shouldn't be hard to see that it would be very easy for the Vultures to surround the Dragoons with Spider Mines.
But if you increase set-up time as well, then it will be just as easy for the Vultures to surround the Dragoons as it is now. And the similar concept can be applied to if the damage point and plant-time is reduced.
So in the scenario where the Dragoon is attacking/kiting, the interaction is unchanged as plant-time and damagepoint goes hand-in-hand.
In the scenario where Dragoons tries to retreat, a lower plant-time will indeed make it slightly more different to retreat, but it will here be possible to replicate the balance by adjusting movement speed.
|
On November 13 2014 03:37 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't. Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37. Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second. Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything. Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard. Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro. Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit). Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro.
This is complete nonsense. You just randomly choose a crappy unit relationship in the game (entirely the Zealot's fault, it has literally zero interesting unit relations, like zero, like not one) and conclude from that that the Marine is poorly designed? Whereas the Stalker is apparently better because of Blink Stalker versus Blink Stalker?
How about Blink Stalker versus Zealot? It's the same dumb shit as Marine versus Zealot, the Zealot gets owned and there's no micro vs micro. Do we conclude from this that Stalkers are badly designed? No! The Zealot sucks!
Marines vs ling/bling/muta is micro vs micro
Marines 2raxing with bunkers against queen/ling/drones is micro vs micro
Marines vs hellion/reaper/siege tank is micro vs micro
Marines vs Chargelot/Templar is micro vs micro (no thanks to Chargelots themselves, but they do force Marines to eat storms as they kite)
You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved.
"I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved."
|
"I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved."
There is a difference between blinking back a single stalker and kiting with your entire bio force. But besides bio-play vs zealots and Ultralisks, kiting with bio-play doesn't feel that dominant, and I also agree that the issue is with the two other units. When you have one unit that is fun to control and another that isn't, then I would start by working on the Zealot and the Ultralisk instead of the Marine/Maurauder.
|
On November 13 2014 04:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
"I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved."
There is a difference between blinking back a single stalker and kiting with your entire bio force. But besides bio-play vs zealots and Ultralisks, kiting with bio-play doesn't feel that dominant, and I also agree that the issue is with the two other units. When you have one unit that is fun to control and another that isn't, then I would start by working on the Zealot and the Ultralisk instead of the Marine/Maurauder.
I think you're having a different discussion that's only tangentially related to mine. My first impulse was to ask you why you even brought up kiting at all, when the obvious, better comparison would have been splitting. But I'm guessing you're still on that attack point business, which is a worthy topic for conversation but not when I haven't slept in going on 30 hours!
As for which units to change, I agree completely.
|
On November 13 2014 04:42 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 03:37 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't. Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37. Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second. Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything. Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard. Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro. Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit). Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro. This is complete nonsense. You just randomly choose a crappy unit relationship in the game (entirely the Zealot's fault, it has literally zero interesting unit relations, like zero, like not one) and conclude from that that the Marine is poorly designed? Whereas the Stalker is apparently better because of Blink Stalker versus Blink Stalker? How about Blink Stalker versus Zealot? It's the same dumb shit as Marine versus Zealot, the Zealot gets owned and there's no micro vs micro. Do we conclude from this that Stalkers are badly designed? No! The Zealot sucks! Marines vs ling/bling/muta is micro vs micro Marines 2raxing with bunkers against queen/ling/drones is micro vs micro Marines vs hellion/reaper/siege tank is micro vs micro Marines vs Chargelot/Templar is micro vs micro (no thanks to Chargelots themselves, but they do force Marines to eat storms as they kite) Show nested quote +You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved. "I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved."
I cant think of any unitrelationship 1v1 that is micro vs micro involving the marine except the baneling. Thats what we are talking about, 1v1.
And in that case, the marine has alot more to say vs the banelings than the baneling vs the marines.
Iam just saying that its rather uninteresting if one side can do micro while the other cant.
Blink stalker vs marines. The stalker can do micro while marines are chanceless.
This is not fun. Is it?
|
On November 13 2014 04:13 Hider wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Vulture lays a mine close to the dragoon, the goon move backward and makes an attack.
But what if the terran player is fast to anticipate this and lays another mine where the dragoon moves->Now the dragoon needs to move further back without ever doing damage. Remember, the reason why we are reducing spider mine plant-time in the first place; it's because Dragoons can start to move faster. So if Dragoon stands still for X seconds, but plant-time takes x seconds more as well, then the terran will be able to place the same amount of spider miens around the Dragoon. As an extreme hypothetical example, imagine the Dragoon stood still for 3 seconds after attacking, but Spider Mine plant time is unchanged. It shouldn't be hard to see that it would be very easy for the Vultures to surround the Dragoons with Spider Mines. But if you increase set-up time as well, then it will be just as easy for the Vultures to surround the Dragoons as it is now. And the similar concept can be applied to if the damage point and plant-time is reduced. So in the scenario where the Dragoon is attacking/kiting, the interaction is unchanged as plant-time and damagepoint goes hand-in-hand. In the scenario where Dragoons tries to retreat, a lower plant-time will indeed make it slightly more different to retreat, but it will here be possible to replicate the balance by adjusting movement speed.
Maybe it could work out well if vulture and spidermines value gets changed. Maybe it would.
|
Something else that just came to my mind is that theyre buffing ultralisk armor and at the same time splitting marauders shot up into two. Im not so sure if this is a good idea since marauders are terrans main counter vs Ultras. I can see that this is possibly not desired since its t1 vs t3 and Ultras lack micro potential vs stimmed marauders. But how is terran gonna counter them, mech units kinda suck vs the ultra and Blizzards official site says Banshees are supposed to fulfill that role (who the fuck came up with that idea xD) . Also marauders already sucked against braindead mass zealot warp ins and now this will get even worse.
|
On November 13 2014 05:25 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 04:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 03:37 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't. Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37. Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second. Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything. Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard. Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro. Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit). Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro. This is complete nonsense. You just randomly choose a crappy unit relationship in the game (entirely the Zealot's fault, it has literally zero interesting unit relations, like zero, like not one) and conclude from that that the Marine is poorly designed? Whereas the Stalker is apparently better because of Blink Stalker versus Blink Stalker? How about Blink Stalker versus Zealot? It's the same dumb shit as Marine versus Zealot, the Zealot gets owned and there's no micro vs micro. Do we conclude from this that Stalkers are badly designed? No! The Zealot sucks! Marines vs ling/bling/muta is micro vs micro Marines 2raxing with bunkers against queen/ling/drones is micro vs micro Marines vs hellion/reaper/siege tank is micro vs micro Marines vs Chargelot/Templar is micro vs micro (no thanks to Chargelots themselves, but they do force Marines to eat storms as they kite) You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved. "I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved." What about blink stalkers vs marines? You look at this fight and say "wow, look at the micro from marines"?
What about Hellions vs Mutalisks? You look at this fight and say "wow, look at the micro from Hellions"?
You're passing judgment on a unit by pointing to a couple of boring dynamics it has where its micro potential is wasted. If that's your standard, not a single unit in SC2 will pass your test. Not one. Blink Stalkers vs Tempests, "wow, look at the micro from Blink Stalkers."
It sounds like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Marines and Stalkers are both well designed units.
|
On November 13 2014 05:40 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 05:25 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 04:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 03:37 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't. Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37. Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second. Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything. Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard. Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro. Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit). Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro. This is complete nonsense. You just randomly choose a crappy unit relationship in the game (entirely the Zealot's fault, it has literally zero interesting unit relations, like zero, like not one) and conclude from that that the Marine is poorly designed? Whereas the Stalker is apparently better because of Blink Stalker versus Blink Stalker? How about Blink Stalker versus Zealot? It's the same dumb shit as Marine versus Zealot, the Zealot gets owned and there's no micro vs micro. Do we conclude from this that Stalkers are badly designed? No! The Zealot sucks! Marines vs ling/bling/muta is micro vs micro Marines 2raxing with bunkers against queen/ling/drones is micro vs micro Marines vs hellion/reaper/siege tank is micro vs micro Marines vs Chargelot/Templar is micro vs micro (no thanks to Chargelots themselves, but they do force Marines to eat storms as they kite) You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved. "I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved." What about blink stalkers vs marines? You look at this fight and say "wow, look at the micro from marines"? What about Hellions vs Mutalisks? You look at this fight and say "wow, look at the micro from Hellions"? You're passing judgment on a unit by pointing to a couple of boring dynamics it has where its micro potential is wasted. If that's your standard, not a single unit in SC2 will pass your test. Not one. Blink Stalkers vs Tempests, "wow, look at the micro from Blink Stalkers." It sounds like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Marines and Stalkers are both well designed units.
I edited my post.
Feels rly hard to talk to you.
|
For melee units high damage point, high speed seems okay conceptually. Instead of catching up and then constantly being able to attack, there is a short delay if the opponent continues to kite, but you can still catch up. But still at the cost of making the melee unit harder to control.
I've never understood why zealots aren't at least faster than marines (now it's 2.25 vs 2.25, imo it should be 2.375 vs 2.25). That seems like the sort of change that could fix some early game TvP interactions.
|
On November 13 2014 05:24 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 04:51 Hider wrote:
"I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved."
There is a difference between blinking back a single stalker and kiting with your entire bio force. But besides bio-play vs zealots and Ultralisks, kiting with bio-play doesn't feel that dominant, and I also agree that the issue is with the two other units. When you have one unit that is fun to control and another that isn't, then I would start by working on the Zealot and the Ultralisk instead of the Marine/Maurauder. I think you're having a different discussion that's only tangentially related to mine. My first impulse was to ask you why you even brought up kiting at all, when the obvious, better comparison would have been splitting. But I'm guessing you're still on that attack point business, which is a worthy topic for conversation but not when I haven't slept in going on 30 hours! As for which units to change, I agree completely.
Sorry, I think I just misread what you wrote.
Something else that just came to my mind is that theyre buffing ultralisk armor and at the same time splitting marauders shot up into two.
Buffing Ultralisk armor is an indication hat they won't mech play to be the dominant choice late game vs zerg. However, I think it's the worst decision they could make. The problem with Ultralisks isn't that they are too weak in a straight up fight, but rather the exact opposite: They are too strong. Therefore the terran bio player is forced to kite.
Instead, they should have nerfed the stats of the Ultralisks and instead increased its movement speed offcreep significantly. This would make it possible for the terran bio player to fight straight up against the Ultralisks, and would make constant-kiting less rewarded.
I've never understood why zealots aren't at least faster than marines (now it's 2.25 vs 2.25, imo it should be 2.375 vs 2.25). That seems like the sort of change that could fix some early game TvP interactions.
So Zealots also have a very high range slop, which means that you can't walk away from Zealots without being attacked in the proces. I think this was added to make Charge always attack vs bio units that kited it.
If you combine this high range slop with faster movement speed, stuff like 2gate-cheese would be too strong.
Instead, I would prefer faster movement speed (like 2.4-2.45) and a range slop reduction from 1 to 0.4.
I believe this would encourage less "group kiting" and would make it more practical to only pull away the targetted bio units. At least during small early game skirmishes, this could be cool.
|
On November 13 2014 05:25 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 04:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 13 2014 03:37 Foxxan wrote:On November 13 2014 03:25 pure.Wasted wrote:
Hider, SC2Toastie, Big J, KeksX, if I read you guys right, you're basically just saying Zealots suck. Which is pretty hard to deny. The most interesting thing that can be done with them is warping them in to block enemy unit movement. Once they're actually warped in, there's really not much at all you can do.
But Foxxan seemed to be saying that Marines suck, because they lack some kind of "micro vs micro" dynamic with most units. In my estimation, Marines have most of the interesting unit relationships in the game, so I'm really confused where he was going with this and which units live up to this standard that Marines, apparently, don't. Imagine if zealots moved at 4.5 movementspeed. Marines with stim move at 3.37. Zealots attack can hit three units(3 marines) at the same time. But to use the zealots as effective as possible, the protoss player wants to micro the zealots so each zealot hit each 3marines - because when a zealot hit 3marines, they taked reduced damage from that same attack for 1second. Pretty one sided - Protoss can show micro while marines cant do anything. Very uninteresting, dont you agree? I wouldnt say "zealots are so well designed" in this regard. Blink stalker vs blink stalker is micro vs micro. Hellion vs zerglings is micro vs micro(abit). Marines vs zealots are micro vs no-micro. This is complete nonsense. You just randomly choose a crappy unit relationship in the game (entirely the Zealot's fault, it has literally zero interesting unit relations, like zero, like not one) and conclude from that that the Marine is poorly designed? Whereas the Stalker is apparently better because of Blink Stalker versus Blink Stalker? How about Blink Stalker versus Zealot? It's the same dumb shit as Marine versus Zealot, the Zealot gets owned and there's no micro vs micro. Do we conclude from this that Stalkers are badly designed? No! The Zealot sucks! Marines vs ling/bling/muta is micro vs micro Marines 2raxing with bunkers against queen/ling/drones is micro vs micro Marines vs hellion/reaper/siege tank is micro vs micro Marines vs Chargelot/Templar is micro vs micro (no thanks to Chargelots themselves, but they do force Marines to eat storms as they kite) You say they have such a high micro-potential. I dont know, when i watch the marines micro, they stutter step or split.
I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved. "I dont know, when i watch the stalkers micro, they just blink. There isn't even an "or," they can only blink. I rather call it simple-micro with not much decision involved." I cant think of any unitrelationship 1v1 that is micro vs micro involving the marine except the baneling. Thats what we are talking about, 1v1.
You can talk about whatever nonsense you like; in the actual game that is SC2, which is not a unit tester and not a monobattle, units tend to accompany other units. And believe it or not "synergy with other units" is actually a part of unit design. It is not wrong to say that "the Marine is a good unit because of the micro plays it has thanks to the Medivac" just like it's not wrong to say that "the Replicator was a shitty beta unit because it was a gimmick with no synergy with other Protoss units."
Iam just saying that its rather uninteresting if one side can do micro while the other cant.
Blink stalker vs marines. The stalker can do micro while marines are chanceless.
This is not fun. Is it?
Can you please explain what your point is? Because I still have no idea. If it's that you prefer watching Stalkers to Marines, then mazel tov. If it's that Zealots need to be redesigned, then this was all very silly, because we agree! If it's that Marines need to be redesigned because they make Zealots not fun, then 1) Stalkers need to be redesigned because they make Marines not fun, and 2) this is a dumb conversation that does not interest me one bit. If it's something else, then I'm afraid you've been excruciatingly unclear and I can only hope you'll lead me out of the fog of my confusion.
|
Something else that just came to my mind is that theyre buffing ultralisk armor and at the same time splitting marauders shot up into two.
They stated that they want Ultralisks to be a counter to Bio play. The same with the Herc to counter Muta/Bling/Ling.
They want more transitioning in the game, so you might start with Bio vs Muta/ling/bane, but then when ultras are added in, u need to add in mech. Ex: the Cyclone that can kite ultras for days, then zerg goes infestor to fungal them, then bc's and blords.
They just want ppl to not play the same style all game every game.
|
On November 13 2014 06:41 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +Something else that just came to my mind is that theyre buffing ultralisk armor and at the same time splitting marauders shot up into two. They stated that they want Ultralisks to be a counter to Bio play. The same with the Herc to counter Muta/Bling/Ling. They want more transitioning in the game, so you might start with Bio vs Muta/ling/bane, but then when ultras are added in, u need to add in mech. Ex: the Cyclone that can kite ultras for days, then zerg goes infestor to fungal them, then bc's and blords. They just want ppl to not play the same style all game every game.
Accomplishing that by adding hardcounters into the game is just really dumb. You can easily add in units that are better vs some types of units, and thus force different unit composition, while maintaining solid unit interactions. Both the Cyclone and Ultralisk change rewards/forces infinitive kiting which isn't interesting at all.
It's really impressive how David Kim and his team have learned so little over all these years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
