|
On July 28 2015 18:09 Big J wrote:
And the forcefield doesn't do a lot besides that and requiring skill for the user, while the opponent cannot do a lot besides fielding his strongest hardcounters to the sentry and maybe using the one or other gimmick to counter it.
Of course the opponent can do something about it - better positioning to avoid being blocked by the force-field. That's not a hardcounter nor gimmick. That's the whole point!
Also note that sentries are rather slow. This gives the opponent a chance to define where the battle is actually going to occur.
To put a better emphasis on what happens before FF, I proposed a cast reduction from 9 to 5. This would make splitting an army with forcefield harder but not impossible. It would require better Sentry positioning and give a chance to the opponent to react to an incoming sentry before FF is cast.
A gimmick, as you say, such as a FF destroyer - that's another story. I don't think it is absolutely necessary, I value this solution much less. This does not require positional micro, it's just a proper clicking response.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
So, I just listened to the 3rd episode and... it would be nice if others would be talking as much as Whitewing(? not sure if he was the voice, I was listening to it at work and 1 voice ruled them all  ). It felt as a one man show. I will listen to the others, it may be because too few people on the show(5 people layout vs 3 present).
Otherwise I had fun and I enjoyed it, good work.
|
On July 28 2015 18:25 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 18:09 Big J wrote:
And the forcefield doesn't do a lot besides that and requiring skill for the user, while the opponent cannot do a lot besides fielding his strongest hardcounters to the sentry and maybe using the one or other gimmick to counter it. Of course the opponent can do something about it - better positioning to avoid being blocked by the force-field. That's not a hardcounter nor gimmick. That's the whole point! Also note that sentries are rather slow. This gives the opponent a chance to define where the battle is actually going to occur. To put a better emphasis on what happens before FF, I proposed a cast reduction from 9 to 5. This would make splitting an army with forcefield harder but not impossible. It would require better Sentry positioning and give a chance to the opponent to react to an incoming sentry before FF is cast. A gimmick, as you say, such as a FF destroyer - that's another story. I don't think it is absolutely necessary, I value this solution much less. This does not require positional micro, it's just a proper clicking response.
Say I position my army so well that forcefields don't work (and the map allows for that and yadayadayada) before the combat - then the Protoss shouldn't take the engagement and no forcefields should be casted.
Say I position my army not as well as above - then my opponent casts his forcefields and that's it.
There are no degrees of success. If the Protoss just places his forcefields somewhat well the combat is decided, the other 20seconds are just clean up.
A good combat in an RTS games is decided back-and-forth micro interactions and the forcefield isn't a such.
|
On July 28 2015 18:41 Big J wrote:
Say I position my army so well that forcefields don't work (and the map allows for that and yadayadayada) before the combat - then the Protoss shouldn't take the engagement and no forcefields should be casted.
Say I position my army not as well as above - then my opponent casts his forcefields and that's it.
There are no degrees of success. If the Protoss just places his forcefields somewhat well the combat is decided, the other 20seconds are just clean up.
A good combat in an RTS games is decided back-and-forth micro interactions and the forcefield isn't a such.
- Sometimes you take an engagement even if you shouldn't - simply because there is no other option. That's the engagement forcing.
- Secondly, when your positioning is decent, but not great, it may happen that the opponent casts some but not all of his forcefields for whatever reason. It could be because of lack of his skill, or because your positioning was not that bad to start with. It may happen that he traps 5% of your units or 55% of your units. There are degrees of success.
Again, I agree on putting more emphasis on the before-FF micro interaction. But saying that there are none, that I have to disagree with.
|
On July 28 2015 19:05 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 18:41 Big J wrote:
Say I position my army so well that forcefields don't work (and the map allows for that and yadayadayada) before the combat - then the Protoss shouldn't take the engagement and no forcefields should be casted.
Say I position my army not as well as above - then my opponent casts his forcefields and that's it.
There are no degrees of success. If the Protoss just places his forcefields somewhat well the combat is decided, the other 20seconds are just clean up.
A good combat in an RTS games is decided back-and-forth micro interactions and the forcefield isn't a such. - Sometimes you take an engagement even if you shouldn't - simply because there is no other option. That's the engagement forcing.
- Secondly, when your positioning is decent, but not great, it may happen that the opponent casts some but not all of his forcefields for whatever reason. It could be because of lack of his skill, or because your positioning was not that bad to start with. It may happen that he traps 5% of your units or 55% of your units. There are degrees of success.
Again, I agree on putting more emphasis on the before-FF micro interaction. But saying that there are none, that I have to disagree with.
Yeah but that's 100% on the Protoss side. It has nothing to do with what I do. If the Protoss makes mistakes or missplaces his forcefields that is not back and forth micro and interaction. It is plainly just one player making a mistake in a situation that may as well be singleplayer.
It's similar to what Teo said about free units. There hasn't been a good implementation of them yet and the same goes for micro and interaction blocking spells and abilities like concussive shells, forcefield, fungal growth. Not one of them has been proven to be popular amongst the player base with very good reasoning. It does the opposite of what most people think is fun.
|
On July 28 2015 19:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 19:05 BlackLilium wrote:On July 28 2015 18:41 Big J wrote:
Say I position my army so well that forcefields don't work (and the map allows for that and yadayadayada) before the combat - then the Protoss shouldn't take the engagement and no forcefields should be casted.
Say I position my army not as well as above - then my opponent casts his forcefields and that's it.
There are no degrees of success. If the Protoss just places his forcefields somewhat well the combat is decided, the other 20seconds are just clean up.
A good combat in an RTS games is decided back-and-forth micro interactions and the forcefield isn't a such. - Sometimes you take an engagement even if you shouldn't - simply because there is no other option. That's the engagement forcing.
- Secondly, when your positioning is decent, but not great, it may happen that the opponent casts some but not all of his forcefields for whatever reason. It could be because of lack of his skill, or because your positioning was not that bad to start with. It may happen that he traps 5% of your units or 55% of your units. There are degrees of success.
Again, I agree on putting more emphasis on the before-FF micro interaction. But saying that there are none, that I have to disagree with. Yeah but that's 100% on the Protoss side. It has nothing to do with what I do. If the Protoss makes mistakes or missplaces his forcefields that is not back and forth micro and interaction. It is plainly just one player making a mistake in a situation that may as well be singleplayer. It's similar to what Teo said about free units. There hasn't been a good implementation of them yet and the same goes for micro and interaction blocking spells and abilities like concussive shells, forcefield, fungal growth. Not one of them has been proven to be popular amongst the player base with very good reasoning. It does the opposite of what most people think is fun.
No, it is not entirely 100% on the Protoss side - that's the point! You can position your units in a way that he simply cannot cast perfect forcefields, but can cast decent one... or mediocre ones... depending on the situation.
With a cast range of 9 that can be hard, but I believe that something smaller, e.g. 5, can change a lot. You can see sentries moving forward, presumabely preparing to cast a force field. You can respond to step back a bit. Or to push even further forward to snipe those sentries. Or move sideways to force sentry repositioning... Or go around the army to hit in the back (sentries are slow)... or <insert another idea here> ...
|
On July 28 2015 23:13 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2015 19:14 Big J wrote:On July 28 2015 19:05 BlackLilium wrote:On July 28 2015 18:41 Big J wrote:
Say I position my army so well that forcefields don't work (and the map allows for that and yadayadayada) before the combat - then the Protoss shouldn't take the engagement and no forcefields should be casted.
Say I position my army not as well as above - then my opponent casts his forcefields and that's it.
There are no degrees of success. If the Protoss just places his forcefields somewhat well the combat is decided, the other 20seconds are just clean up.
A good combat in an RTS games is decided back-and-forth micro interactions and the forcefield isn't a such. - Sometimes you take an engagement even if you shouldn't - simply because there is no other option. That's the engagement forcing.
- Secondly, when your positioning is decent, but not great, it may happen that the opponent casts some but not all of his forcefields for whatever reason. It could be because of lack of his skill, or because your positioning was not that bad to start with. It may happen that he traps 5% of your units or 55% of your units. There are degrees of success.
Again, I agree on putting more emphasis on the before-FF micro interaction. But saying that there are none, that I have to disagree with. Yeah but that's 100% on the Protoss side. It has nothing to do with what I do. If the Protoss makes mistakes or missplaces his forcefields that is not back and forth micro and interaction. It is plainly just one player making a mistake in a situation that may as well be singleplayer. It's similar to what Teo said about free units. There hasn't been a good implementation of them yet and the same goes for micro and interaction blocking spells and abilities like concussive shells, forcefield, fungal growth. Not one of them has been proven to be popular amongst the player base with very good reasoning. It does the opposite of what most people think is fun. No, it is not entirely 100% on the Protoss side - that's the point! You can position your units in a way that he simply cannot cast perfect forcefields, but can cast decent one... or mediocre ones... depending on the situation. With a cast range of 9 that can be hard, but I believe that something smaller, e.g. 5, can change a lot. You can see sentries moving forward, presumabely preparing to cast a force field. You can respond to step back a bit. Or to push even further forward to snipe those sentries. Or move sideways to force sentry repositioning... Or go around the army to hit in the back (sentries are slow)... or <insert another idea here> ...
You can set up against everything in the game. If we go by this there is no bad design at all for as long as it is not overpowered. If we go beyond being able to set up before a play actually happens, then we have to consider how said play interacts with its enviroment after it has been initiated. The forcefield design is a miserable fail in that department.
Examples of spells that you can interact with after they are casted are:
Psi Storm/Blinding Cloud --> the spell's effect can be run out of. The caster has paid energy for a certain time duration, but only gotten a small part of it.
Parasitic Bomb --> the caster has paid for a splash effect, but you can evacuate every unit but one out of its area of effect
Forcefield? the unit displacement happens instantly. There is no way to diminish the purpose of the forcefield, because the purpose of the forcefield is that you cannot go where it is. Dodging its location is exactly what the forcefield wants you to do. Destroying it is not possible*.
+ Show Spoiler +*blizzard has actually realized a long time ago that this is a problem with forcefield and tried to fix it by being crushed by massive units. It just didn't work due to the lack of massive units for long game periods.
There are a bunch of abilities nowadays that can influence positioning even if there are forcefields. It's blizzard's gimmicky bandaid way to repair forcefield while keeping the spell itself bad design.
The point still remains that destroying it is very complicated strategically and in many cases you are not rewarded to try and get the destruction techs (e.g. rushing to ultralisks to be safe against a 2base sentry play).
Examples of spells that can be interacted while being casted:
Neural Parasite --> channeled effect. You can kill the infestor while it has to stay close to the neuraled target.
new Snipe --> channeled cast. Can be interrupted.
Disruptor --> indication that the spell is being channeled. Unit can be avoided to make the disruptor waste its effect.
Forcefield? The whole effect takes place exactly when the spellcontroller wants it to take place. The sentry isn't bound to the forcefield in some way after being casted.
Examples of spells whose effects stick, but where the spell can be dodged:
EMP/Fungal Growth --> no possible interaction with the effect, but you can dodge the projectile
Forcefield? Instant cast. If the spell is badly placed it is just that, the controller of the spell placing it badly.
Again, you can set up for everything as long as it isn't overpowered (as this is basically the vaguest possible definition of something being not overpowered). Good design is a question that goes beyond that concept.
|
oh, I can make FF worse by design. Simply give a sentry an infinite casting range for example 
I am not talking about the mere preparation for the battle. My point is that during battles you can still react to approaching sentries as they are about to cast their force field. There is not too much to maneouver right now with the high cast range (9), but with a lower one - I honestly believe that pre-FF interaction can be much more interesting.
Of course, spells that do not affect movement give better interactions. I am also not claiming that FF is great. I understand that constraining movement is, by definition, limiting one side the movement posibilities once it is casted.
What I disagree with is the thinking that FF are unsalvageable and must dissapear completely. I am against absolute statements as "no interaction" or "everything is on the skill of one side". That's not true.
Compare it to... banelings. After the baneling explodes, neither side can do anything about it. It went boom. It's done. Period. What happens before the explosion is what matters. However, baneling explosion casting range is 0 - it explodes where the baneling is standing.
Imagine that a baneling could teleport in the range of 9 right before it explodes. Would it be an interesting ability? Not really. It would be overpowered and the defender couldn't do much about it. In terms of interaction it would be as broken as sentries are now.
Now let us go to other extreme: imagine that force field is casted exactly where the sentry is standing (a.k.a. casting range 0). It would be very easy to avoid, most of the skill would be on the defender, not attacker, given that Sentries are slower than banelings.
Now, between these two extremes, I believe, there lies a "sweet spot" where both attackers and defenders fight with their positioning. One trying to position sentries in the best possible spot to forcefield the enemy, while the other side tries to deny that.
|
On July 29 2015 01:00 BlackLilium wrote:oh, I can make FF worse by design. Simply give a sentry an infinite casting range for example I am not talking about the mere preparation for the battle. My point is that during battles you can still react to approaching sentries as they are about to cast their force field. There is not too much to maneouver right now with the high cast range (9), but with a lower one - I honestly believe that pre-FF interaction can be much more interesting. Of course, spells that do not affect movement give better interactions. I am also not claiming that FF is great. I understand that constraining movement is, by definition, limiting one side the movement posibilities once it is casted. What I disagree with is the thinking that FF are unsalvageable and must dissapear completely. I am against absolute statements as "no interaction" or "everything is on the skill of one side". That's not true. Compare it to... banelings. After the baneling explodes, neither side can do anything about it. It went boom. It's done. Period. What happens before the explosion is what matters. However, baneling explosion casting range is 0 - it explodes where the baneling is standing. Imagine that a baneling could teleport in the range of 9 right before it explodes. Would it be an interesting ability? Not really. It would be overpowered and the defender couldn't do much about it. In terms of interaction it would be as broken as sentries are now. Now let us go to other extreme: imagine that force field is casted exactly where the sentry is standing (a.k.a. casting range 0). It would be very easy to avoid, most of the skill would be on the defender, not attacker, given that Sentries are slower than banelings. Now, between these two extremes, I believe, there lies a "sweet spot" where both attackers and defenders fight with their positioning. One trying to position sentries in the best possible spot to forcefield the enemy, while the other side tries to deny that.
Banelings work like the projectile examples to some degree, with the difference that they are much slower and can be attacked, but don't have to detonate after movement.
True that forcefield could be tweaked. At least I believe everything can be tweaked in some ways to become better if not even good. The questions are how and why.
The question is why you don't use better designs from your almost infinite idea pool to begin with instead of using resources to tweak inherently problematic designs until they become interesting.
|
United States4883 Posts
First of all: burrowing banelings for 2-base all-ins (in HotS) is not doable because you can't guarantee they're going to hit the sentries, and if they don't, you're in a lot of trouble. Plus, you sacrifice higher tech like roaches and lair tech in order to do so, so it can be very punishing if you don't get the huge baneling hit you want. KawaiiRice used to do mass ling/bling with baneling drops onto the Protoss army + constant runbys into the Protoss base, but I have no idea how someone can manage that without the 400 APM he had.
Second, as for the discussion about Forcefield: I understand that it has been frustrating to deal with in WoL and HotS, particularly the 2-base all-ins. Outside of the all-ins (or defending all-ins) though, forcefield has very limited use because there are too many ways to decide WHERE you want to fight and HOW to deal with the forcefields (massive units breaking them, flying units sniping sentries, etc., etc.). In LotV, both Zerg and Terran have been given a lot more tools that provide counterplay to forcefields early on (particularly the ravager and cyclone), so I honestly don't think it's a bad ability at all anymore. It:
- Forces pre-emptive positioning to make sure you don't engage in a choke where you can be forcefielded off. And vice versa, it requires Protoss to be mindful of their own positioning so that they aren't sitting ducks in open ground.
- Has plenty of counter micro abilities to lessen the impact of good forcefields. Ravagers can break the forcefields, roaches can burrow out, medivacs can lift stuff out, cyclones can snipe sentries/stalkers over the forcefields, etc.
- Has plenty of strategic counterplay available. For instance, the reason 2-base Protoss timings were so powerful was because you couldn't stop them from getting an early economy going and having similar or same workers by the time they decided to start warping in from 6+ gateways. With options like early overlord drops and cyclone openings as well as the changes in economy making those 2-base all-ins very unforgiving, there are plenty of ways to get around timings that would rely on forcefields.
That said, as much as forcefield has been hated in the past, I think it's fine the way it is now. Perhaps we have a bunch of forced interactions which could have been avoided if we had never made the sentry in the first place...but at this point, there's no reason to petition to remove forcefield from the game hehe.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 28 2015 18:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +I have nothing against passive abilities. The point I was making is that an ability is not inherently good or bad just because it is passive or active. Concussive shells was an example of a bad passive ability, to demonstrate that an ability being passive doesn't make it inherently good. This was a counterpoint to a common community complaint about active abilities being bad and passive being good. Sorry, I must have missunderstood your point there. I can fully agree with that. Show nested quote +Concussive shells is bad because it in no way shape or form changes the function of the marauder, nor is there any particular response to it. You don't change your play based on terran getting concussive shells: the response to marauders is the same when they have it and when they don't. Imagine removing concussive shells from the game entirely: what specific plays would suddenly become viable that weren't? The old concussive shell rushes which feature marauders running in circles around units forever is already dead because people learned how to stop those types of plays. It's an ability that doesn't really do much of anything except make kiting slightly easier. It doesn't in any way make kiting possible when it wasn't though: there aren't any situations I can think of where a bio ball is incapable of kiting without concussive shells but can with it. The kiting might be a bit easier with it and more forgiving, but it's hardly necessary (which I think is demonstrated by how nobody tries to get it early anymore). I don't like the ability, but just because it doesn't have a strategical implication doesn't mean it is bad. It plainly makes the marauder a little better at kiting or in general in combat (opponents hit your army later, you get to do more damage). It is thus not different from a passive stats upgrade such as combat shields or chitinous plating. Which btw can also be considered a passive ability on its own (e.g. the ability to block 3incoming damage). Show nested quote +The tankivac is a specific example of a unit interaction being created to force synergy by allowing one unit to break the way another unit functions. The siege tank is normally required to not be able to move at all while rooted for it's siege mode. Medivac previously could not overwrite that downside: I.E. the functionality of siege mode took priority and was not in any way impacted. Medivacs could pick up any unit that could not move, which is to be expected of a unit that roots itself to the ground. The new interaction was a deliberate modification of the siege tank and medivac to allow it to break the original intent of siege mode. This is an artificial interaction. Note that there is synergy there in one context of the word (units working together to do something better). However, as I define synergy, it is a unit working well with another unit without changing the way the unit works. The siege tanks "I can't move at all" mechanic is completely removed when a medivac lifts it. That's a specifically coded interaction with deliberate forced intent. The siege tanks "No movement at all" gets replaced with "No movement at all, unless a medivac lifts it". Note the exemption here: if you played zerg, mind controlled an scv, built an entire terran army, and tried to lift the sieged tank with an overlord, it would not work. That's not synergy as I generally define it, because it requires a deliberate modification of the unit to make it work. Has someone actually tried that? Because I would consider it weird if blizzard didn't plainly implement that synergy via the "cargo space" value of the unit which was previously 0 (=cannot be lifted) and is now probably 8 (=takes 8cargo space in a transport). Without trying it I would have assumed it was possible to lift a siege tank with an overlord in LotV. That the unit is visually rooted into the ground is a nice flavor to the unit, but not a gameplay functionality. In terms of being liftable, every other unit is liftable (even if it is way too big for the transport or way too heavy according to the lore - Thors, Ultralisks) so why wouldn't the siege tank be? The reason is to create artificially good gameplay and remove synergy where there would be. Show nested quote +My point was that the phrase "Counterplay" is typically incorrectly applied and misused in an RTS environment. Emphasis on game design necessarily focuses on strategic decisions with damage control micro situations being a secondary element. The appropriate strategic response to a play is the counter to it: sometimes that is micro if you already have the correct units, but the point is that being in a situation in which you cannot micro against what your opponent is doing is not an example of a lack of counterplay: you've already botched the counterplay by getting into that situation. In mobas (where the term as used comes from), there are only 5 heroes on the field for each team (or whatever number the game uses), and therefore counterplay refers to being able to respond to what a specific hero is doing. Incidentally, it often is done before the interaction in question comes up, such as by choosing the right talent ahead of time or buying the correct item. Due to popular demand blizzard is trying to make it a more primary element. Though it can never replace the power of numbers and composition, it can take a much bigger role in the game and I really like that about the new unit/ability designs. Show nested quote +As to the force field, there's nothing you can do once you're out of position and a doom drop winds up in your base either, beyond damage control. There are many mechanics in the game for which the optimal response after it hits is to cut your losses and try to see what you can make work after the fact. Forcefields are a mechanic by which a protoss can defend himself with a weaker force (necessary given production rates in PvZ and strength/weaknesses of units at specific timings), or can punish an unprepared or out of position opponent. Being unprepared or out of position (or poorly controlling your forces) is punished by many mechanics in this game, not just forcefield. In this way, forcefield isn't really any different than fungal growth causing an entire big ball of units to die because they got caught, or a ghost landing a nice EMP on important caster units, or any number of other punishing moves. Forcefields are a space controlling ability, you have to respect it ahead of time, and the correct response is to plan for it. The lack of a response to forcefields after you are caught is not an inherently problematic situation in an RTS. They would be problematic and would lack "Counterplay" if you also could not prepare a response ahead of time. There are a wide range of responses, which is why protoss doesn't just keep going mass sentry for the entire game. Just as the counterplay to blinking into a bunch of unseen bio units and getting blown up is to get vision of the map ahead before blinking forward, the counter to forcefields is to be prepared ahead of time, not react after they are down.
The point is, if you are caught by forcefields, it's because you made a mistake. You either engaged when you shouldn't have, were out of position, or were completely unprepared for them. There are a good array of responses to forcefields, like forcing engagements in wide areas of the map where they are ineffective, getting burrow move on roaches, massive units, flying units, avoiding the army, overwhelming the forces with flanks, etc. Most of them require you to make a decision ahead of time. That is the status quo and gameplay as you describe here is widely considered as unfun. Imo you are focusing too much on strategical interactions with the forcefield. What you are saying in essence comes down to "there is a response to forcefields so that you don't lose", i.e. it is not imbalanced. That doesn't say anything about its design. You talk a lot about how it creates strategical interaction. But creating strategical interaction is by far the easiest part of design, most things in the game have that. That doesn't make most things in the game good because of that. And the forcefield doesn't do a lot besides that and requiring skill for the user, while the opponent cannot do a lot besides fielding his strongest hardcounters to the sentry and maybe using the one or other gimmick to counter it.
Concussive shells doesn't change whether the marauder can kite in any situation or not, it simply makes it easier. The marauder is already a good kiting unit: long range, high movement speed with stim, responsive control, etc. Concussive shells doesn't really change much of anything for the unit, which is why you hardly see anyone research it anymore, at least until much later in the game. More importantly, there's no change in behavior for the opponent to respond to it or plan for it. You already can't catch marauders with zealots, and stalkers already lose to them. The only thing concussive shells does is make a bad attack worse by limiting the damage control of the opponent, by preventing retreat. In a strategy game, any ability which does not have a strategic implication is a bad ability.
We're spitting hairs on this one: you see the siege tank siege mode as being the unique interaction whereas I see the medivac changing the functionality of siege mode as the unique interaction. The important thing to me on this one is that the siege mode is the defining feature of the tank, and the total and complete lack of mobility is intrinsic as a characteristic of the ability. Allowing siege tanks to rapidly change positions by using a medivac completely bypasses the intended weakness of siege mode, which is a compensating factor of the strength of it. In this way, the medivac accomplishes something significantly beyond what is generally intended of the medivac: healing and allowing ground units to bypass terrain. It entirely cuts out some of the required transformation time of the siege mode ability to reposition: medivacs change the way a specific ability works.
The whole point is that force fields aren't a bad ability by design just because you can't micro out of them because you are caught. You might as well argue that EMP shouldn't exist because it can't be dodged (too fast a projectile), or Yamato Canon because you can't dodge it. In an RTS, skill is not exclusively the domain of unit control and micro: it is primarily in the realm of strategic decision making, reading the field of battle, making good decisions and having good judgment. Micro is merely a way of optimizing the output of the tools you currently have at hand in the situation you find yourself in. The goal should not be to eliminate mechanics which limit that, because that's their way of optimizing their unit control. Rather, players have the responsibility of doing their utmost to avoid poor situations with their strategic decisions and planning.
You need to plan for what your opponent is doing and respond appropriately ahead of time. What's the counter to a DT rush? Scouting and then responding with detection. Forcefields are less binary because there are things both players can do to control their forces to limit or improve their effectiveness, but the basic principle is the same. Be prepared for them and be careful on your engagements and positioning. Micro'ing out after you are caught is the "Oops, I screwed up" response.
You complain about force fields being unfun. Firstly, that's subjective. Secondly, they are quite fun to use for the protoss player in many cases. Thirdly, many mechanics in the game are "unfun" for the opponent. I don't find mutalisks to be enjoyable to play against. I hate playing against doom drops. I rather dislike a number of things when they are used against me. That doesn't make them bad mechanics.
The design of the individual ability "Forcefield" is just fine. There's nothing inherently problematic about a terrain changing ability. I did mention I don't like it being available on early gateway units because of complications that go with that on the show, but that's a complaint about the sentry, not the forcefield ability.
I'm simply explaining what forcefields are from a game design perspective, and why they are not inherently problematic. They are a great ability by design: their existence drastically changes how the opponents have to respond to their presence, they enable different behaviors amongst the protoss units, they serve the purpose of zoning and space control admirably, and they are resource based and not free (I.E. cost). There's a noticeable skill difference between a great player using them and a mediocre player using them, and there are a wide range of responses. That's what good design is for an activated ability: it's existence changes the way the game is played without breaking the game and gives the unit an additional function. If forcefield were removed from the game tomorrow, sentries would only be made for scouting and guardian shield, and you might see 1-2 in an army at any given point in time at most. They wouldn't be threatening, and would be exceptionally boring. Force field defines that unit, and "I don't have fun fighting against it" is not a good argument as to why it's bad design as a mechanic.
The general point: I strongly disagree that in a strategy game or RTS, that the determining factor in a good battle is the micro. The determining factor in whether a batlte is good or not is the strategy involved. If the opposing player correctly responds and fields the correct units or, alternatively, forces the engagement in a better position, then micro is enabled. If he failed to do so, it's because he strategically screwed up. I don't see people suggesting that you should be able to micro corrupters against marines to kill them, but if you're fielding corrupters against marines, you've royally screwed up. If you're up against forcefields, choose any of the umpteen possible responses to it and use that. If you fail to do that, you're at a massive strategic disadvantage.
Forcefields are simply more visible, and that's why they are complained about. This is the underlying core mechanic of an RTS: If you fail to scout and plan appropriately, you will wind up bringing a knife to a gunfight (metaphorically). If I just make mass roach, skip burrow move, and try to ram them down a protoss's throat, I absolutely deserve to lose if he defends with forcefields well. That's my fault for making a bad decision. If a protoss moves out on the map with chargelot/archon and I crush them super hardcore with mass roach, there's nothing he can do to micro against that. Zealots and archons cannot beat mass roach in a normal game, they just flat out lose (which is why people don't really do zealot/archon). That's the players fault, not the game designers fault.
|
In a strategy game, any ability which does not have a strategic implication is a bad ability.
a) personal opinion
b) concussive shell makes the marauder stronger as a fact. The strategical implication is that you need to counter marauders even harder.
c) there is a prominent concussive shell strategy for which it is vital: the TvT proxy marauder rush
Still agree that concussive shell isn't a good ability though, but for other reasons than the given generalization.
We're spitting hairs on this one: you see the siege tank siege mode as being the unique interaction whereas I see the medivac changing the functionality of siege mode as the unique interaction. The important thing to me on this one is that the siege mode is the defining feature of the tank, and the total and complete lack of mobility is intrinsic as a characteristic of the ability. Allowing siege tanks to rapidly change positions by using a medivac completely bypasses the intended weakness of siege mode, which is a compensating factor of the strength of it. In this way, the medivac accomplishes something significantly beyond what is generally intended of the medivac: healing and allowing ground units to bypass terrain. It entirely cuts out some of the required transformation time of the siege mode ability to reposition: medivacs change the way a specific ability works.
To go back to the start of the argument: It is still synergy. Even if you don't like it. Even if it feels against the identity of the tank. Whether or not the unit can't move or moves very slow (reaver+shuttle combo) without being lifted is besides the point. It is synergy to lift it and transport it around. And it is a good example how synergy isn't inherently always a good thing (in my opinion), as in this case it breaks the identity and a defining weakness of the siege tank.
The whole point is that force fields aren't a bad ability by design just because you can't micro out of them because you are caught. You might as well argue that EMP shouldn't exist because it can't be dodged (too fast a projectile), or Yamato Canon because you can't dodge it. In an RTS, skill is not exclusively the domain of unit control and micro: it is primarily in the realm of strategic decision making, reading the field of battle, making good decisions and having good judgment. Micro is merely a way of optimizing the output of the tools you currently have at hand in the situation you find yourself in. The goal should not be to eliminate mechanics which limit that, because that's their way of optimizing their unit control. Rather, players have the responsibility of doing their utmost to avoid poor situations with their strategic decisions and planning.
Yes and no. Of course you shouldn't be able to get a pass without strategic decisions. But if I take the last sentence of this quote this merely goes back to balance. For as long as matchups are balanced it is always the case that you can do something about what your opponent is doing. That doesn't mean we should call it a day just because there exist counter strategies. The counterplay that you call damage control is a major part of RTS games and there is nothing wrong with it being just as vital as proper strategic responses. It's exactly what the community has been asking for for a long time, from broodwar fetishist ("in BW a professional player would beat 200supply armies with a 1hp zergling") to popular community persons ("Boomerangs vs Frisbees" -Day9) to a thousand and one threads on all forums ("Why this game is dying --> microlimiting abilities") and lately blizzard themselves ("we want more micro"; "we want microbased counterplays"). In this case I fully agree that what seems like is the overwhelming majority of persons affiliated to starcraft are right, because I personally rather run ling/bling/muta into 4M all day and win purely based on "damage control" than to win or lose based on scouting that dark shrine or not.
And yes I do believe that Yamato Canon is a horrible ability (that we rarely see because the unit it is on is of very limited use), just like old Snipe was a horrible ability and the suggestion that EMP should get a slower projectile has also been brought up various times and I full agree with it. RTS games can obviously have these abilities, but they'd be better with inherent counterplay.
You complain about force fields being unfun. Firstly, that's subjective. Secondly, they are quite fun to use for the protoss player in many cases. Thirdly, many mechanics in the game are "unfun" for the opponent. I don't find mutalisks to be enjoyable to play against. I hate playing against doom drops. I rather dislike a number of things when they are used against me. That doesn't make them bad mechanics.
Yes, there is obviously the problem that noone wants to lose and thus the tools being used to kill you always can feel "unfun". Of course a lot of these opinions are always subjective. So it comes down to quality assessments whether a tool is actually bad, or you just don't like it because someone used it against you. I can fully relate to doomdrops and mutalisks in that regard, they have been overbuffed and Teo even mentioned mutalisks explcitly being somewhat bad design when it came to the "weak mobility" vs "strong immobility" discussion and I fully agree. I believe both of those options should be toned down for a better experience in the game. Because as you say, it isn't fun to chase an opponent that has most of his army flying circles around you with superior speed and usually greatly limiting the strategical choices you can make because the only choice you often have is to deal with that army as best as your race allows you to.
To the question of forcefield, it goes back to the inherent lack of tools to interact with it after it has been casted. Which has been brought up very often. I very much agree with John's point on the matter for LotV, which in essence comes down to that there are now so many great tools to deal with bigger (and maybe even smaller) numbers of sentries that the spell is now pretty much powerless. Similar to how you said that you are fine with the current infested terran as free unit. It is such a weak spell that it hardly ever gets used besides superendgame turtle scenarios in which you have had the money and time to summon 8 unupgraded marines from a 2supply unit. It doesn't make the spell design good, it just means that it would be complaining about first world problems and not something that actually occurs a lot.
The general point: I strongly disagree that in a strategy game or RTS, that the determining factor in a good battle is the micro. The determining factor in whether a batlte is good or not is the strategy involved. If the opposing player correctly responds and fields the correct units or, alternatively, forces the engagement in a better position, then micro is enabled. If he failed to do so, it's because he strategically screwed up. I don't see people suggesting that you should be able to micro corrupters against marines to kill them, but if you're fielding corrupters against marines, you've royally screwed up. If you're up against forcefields, choose any of the umpteen possible responses to it and use that. If you fail to do that, you're at a massive strategic disadvantage.
I think I have most of this covered already, but I need to mention that most players view the corruptor as a very boring unit because it cannot interact at all with units as the marine. In comparison, a phoenix and a viking both can. They aren't good strategical counterchoices to marines, but they offer damage control/microbased counterplays or whatever you want to call it, besides running away from the marine (viking transformation and graviton beam). That's basically what I'm asking for. I don't want zerglings to break forcefields and be a great strategical option, but it would be nice if they e.g. could chip holes into a lair of forcefields to force a recast. So in a situation in which you are stranded with lings against sentries you could still optimize upwards with zerglings, even if it still leads to a loss. I don't want a "get out of jail card" by dodgin every bullet, but it would be nice if you could diminish the damage taken (or deal more damage yourself) pretty regardless of who meets who on the battlefield.
If I just make mass roach, skip burrow move, and try to ram them down a protoss's throat, I absolutely deserve to lose if he defends with forcefields well. That's my fault for making a bad decision. If a protoss moves out on the map with chargelot/archon and I crush them super hardcore with mass roach, there's nothing he can do to micro against that. Zealots and archons cannot beat mass roach in a normal game, they just flat out lose (which is why people don't really do zealot/archon).
The difference is that in the one scenario with enough forcefields the roaches do nothing. They only start to do anything once the forcefield energy has run out. In the other scenario, the zealot/archon player still damages the roach army.
The greatest example of a unit that got changed despite strategical depth is the old swarm host. And it's great that it won't be in LotV in the old version (even though I don't like the new version either because it keeps a lot of the old problems). The sentry with its forcefield falls into the same category, or at least it did pre-LotV. Unlike the swarm host it hasn't been adressed directly but indirectly with new counters and buffs to old counters. The result is hopefully the same, that we won't be seeing it again outside of exotic strategies.
|
|
|
United States4883 Posts
While I appreciate that we're having a discussion here, I think this one has gotten a little out of hand now. It's literally just become a war of semantics and opinions, and no one is bringing up new points. Let's guide it to a conclusion or let it go so that we can move onto other questions and ideas.
|
Changing the topic.... in the Strat Chat #1 you mentioned a balance between Ground-to-Air and Air-to-Air.
Generally, ground-to-air can, and probably should, be stronger. This is because air units can easily bypass terrain obstacles in such a direction where ground units cannot follow them. On the other hand, air-to-air units can follow and stick to their target, allowing them to do damage for a longer period of time - thus DPS can be lower, while remaining viable.
In Starcraft 2 however, we have air killing air with high DPS: vikings, corruptors, phoenix. As a result, the best counter to air to get more air... This becomes particularly true when fighting mutalisks - which are not only fast, but have a high regeneration rate.
The question to you: what changes would you propose to shape GtA and AtA the way you described? Protoss and Zerg has only few units that shoot air in the first place. Viking, Corruptor, Phoenix are also units that shoot only air and can interact with ground only in a limited scope.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 29 2015 15:11 BlackLilium wrote:
Changing the topic.... in the Strat Chat #1 you mentioned a balance between Ground-to-Air and Air-to-Air.
Generally, ground-to-air can, and probably should, be stronger. This is because air units can easily bypass terrain obstacles in such a direction where ground units cannot follow them. On the other hand, air-to-air units can follow and stick to their target, allowing them to do damage for a longer period of time - thus DPS can be lower, while remaining viable.
In Starcraft 2 however, we have air killing air with high DPS: vikings, corruptors, phoenix. As a result, the best counter to air to get more air... This becomes particularly true when fighting mutalisks - which are not only fast, but have a high regeneration rate.
The question to you: what changes would you propose to shape GtA and AtA the way you described? Protoss and Zerg has only few units that shoot air in the first place. Viking, Corruptor, Phoenix are also units that shoot only air and can interact with ground only in a limited scope.
Frankly, I'd just remove the bonus regeneration on the mutalisks. Right now, the only air army that protoss can't even attempt to fight with ground only units is mass muta. High templar are a good ground to air unit, and while stalkers and archons aren't great, they do okay in decent numbers. The issue is that mutalisks don't care with their regen rate, they fly in, do damage, run away and are back to full health in no time. While terran's anti-air DPS is so high mutas just plain die when they get close, Protoss is more based on high health lower damage units, so they can't just shred mutalisks.
Ground vs air isn't an issue in PvT. In TvZ it is with brood lords, but that's mostly because the goliath was replaced with the viking. That's not inherently problematic, since the viking is very weak vs. ground units and isn't extremely powerful straight up (it's strength is its range, not it's damage output), but brood lords still die if marines get under them pretty quickly, so I'm not too concerned about it.
Right now, the only real offender is the mutalisk.
|
How about ZvX? I have seen many Zergs complaining on the forums about lack of reliable anti-air, except for spine crawlers. I don't know how it is seen at higher levels of play.
Infestor does not seem to be that common in the context of anti-air, as it used to be too... or?
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 29 2015 15:59 BlackLilium wrote:
How about ZvX? I have seen many Zergs complaining on the forums about lack of reliable anti-air, except for spine crawlers. I don't know how it is seen at higher levels of play.
Infestor does not seem to be that common in the context of anti-air, as it used to be too... or?
Hydralisks and infestors do pretty well until the late game comes into fruition, for the most part. Spore crawlers help out a great deal as well. In HOTS it can be hard to deal with after the change to the swarm host, but in LOTV they have that new viper spell. Zerg doesn't have trouble vs air heavy armies until they start being super late game max air armies, and by then they can field vipers, infestors, mass corrupter, and a whole host of issues.
Zerg ground based anti-air does fine for most of the game, so it's okay for the most part.
|
I feel you are making many examples of how to deal with air using air.... you bring vikings, vipers, corruptors into the discussion. Of course that is viable and way to go and the game is overall mostly balanced because of those units. But it is also - in a way - symmetrical: you get air to fight air.
Wouldn't it be more interesting if air-to-air was weaker and ground-to-air stronger?
If you answer is no - and that's what I am getting from your responses so far - why did you bring the GtA and AtA into the discussion in the Start Chat #1? It becomes a bit confusing to me....
|
I can definitely agree that it would be nice to have better ground to air capabilities or rather air to ground wasn't as dominant. I think Protoss suffers the most from this, but I want to mention that Zerg only gets by in ZvZ due to the bandaid +30vs bio on spore crawlers and doesn't get by at all with GtA defense against the second dominant air unit which is the medivac and is therefore forced into spire play.
Since it's always the same two units - medivacs, mutalisks - that lead to problems the solution is rather simple, those units should be nerfed back to status they had before the HotS-buffs. Maybe some consensus between WoL and HotS could be found and maybe some other things would have to be adjusted (spore crawler, phoenix, photon overcharge), but that should be the general direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
