|
On May 18 2011 05:17 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:
You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet. Show nested quote +
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change? I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway.
You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home.
And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
|
On May 18 2011 05:52 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 05:17 Yaotzin wrote:On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:
You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change? I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway. You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home. And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_- And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Exactly what i thought about the marine-baneling argument :D.
I really think the game would be better if this was adjusted, not only would it look cooler, but it would also lead to more entertaining battles. Controlling your units would still benefit the outcome of the battle as much as it would when the units are clumped up. And I don't think it would be to hard to balance out AoE that would get to weak. I would prefer that AoE attacks didn't kill armies so fast anyway. And hellions could just get a slightly wider attack or something?
|
Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again.
-Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers.
-Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
|
On May 18 2011 05:57 Zorgaz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 05:52 sushiman wrote:On May 18 2011 05:17 Yaotzin wrote:On May 18 2011 05:10 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:
You're getting it wrong. It's not auto-spread, it's not clumping up from a move command. If you already have units in a tight ball they will move in the tight ball. However if you have units spread and you move them, they will stay spread as how they were originally positioned while they are moving.
Well it's pretty much the same effect. Terran then splits his marines at home, then attacks with split marines. That doesn't take skill, it's doing it while banelings are running at you that is sweet.
You can still pack them in a tight ball, but this way you are allowed to choose what you would like i.e. MORE micro and positioning, not just "let's not get in a ball here". It's the same as in BW.
Thing is, you want to be spread out more often than you want to be in a ball. So this would be a gigantic nerf to all AOE, and marines and such would have to be nerfed to the ground, AOE buffed in some way etc etc. The whole game would have to be redone. All for a really pretty minor aesthetic change? I prefer the skillful move being splitting up your forces over the opposite, anyway. You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home. And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_- And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything. Exactly what i thought about the marine-baneling argument :D. I really think the game would be better if this was adjusted, not only would it look cooler, it wouldn't be to hard to balance out AoE that would get to weak. I would prefer that AoE attacks didn't kill armies so fast though.
Well, it works like this.
Marines are really really strong..and cheap. They destroy stuff. So we give them a low amount of health and let em keep their strength. Really, a ball of glass cannons should die really fast, and aoe is mostly for balls of glass cannons. So you have to ask for the units that aoe is used on to be weaker if you want aoe to be weaker. Just my 2 cents
|
On May 18 2011 05:58 Bippzy wrote:
Alright time to go against this.
-Rebalancing the game completely is untangible because of the pro scene. It'd be like giving the pros a new game to learn and telling them go try to win tournaments. Also, blizzard isnt super pro at balancing as it is..I don't want to see them have to try again.
-Blobs look unnatural. What? This is a game and nothing is real in it. It can never look natural. From a lore standpoint, a well trained army, a psionically linked army, or an army controlled by a hive mind would probably clump up because there are strength in numbers.
-Do NOT make the game easier. We have to accept the challenges we get. This game is about getting big balls or getting something to hold big balls in one place or destroy the big ball. Making the big ball easier just isn't tangible. This sounds like a little complaint about difficulty dressed up in a suit.
The game wouldn't become easier..... -.-'. Think about it, if peasants could walk 2 squares all the time in chess the game wouldn't become easier since both players would benefit from this.
Now you might say well chess is good as it is. I agree, but then again the pathing in BW worked differently than in SC2.. =/, and i kinda liked it better.
On May 18 2011 06:01 Bippzy wrote:
Well, it works like this.
Marines are really really strong..and cheap. They destroy stuff. So we give them a low amount of health and let em keep their strength. Really, a ball of glass cannons should die really fast, and aoe is mostly for balls of glass cannons. So you have to ask for the units that aoe is used on to be weaker if you want aoe to be weaker. Just my 2 cents
That's a little narrow minded isn't it. As people have pointed out this wouldn't necessarily make marine splitting easier since the banelings also would come more spread out. And worst case scenario you can always make the AoE larger.
|
While this will likely never happen, it's still a good idea.
It basically comes down to this:
Currently: Ground units clump up all the time, no matter what you do.
Suggested: Players have the option of keeping units spread out, or clumping them up, and having a good spread or a tight ball both require similar level of control.
The current system is simply limiting. It makes things easier for one side, much, much harder for the other. Less control means less way for skill to shine.
|
This would make the game soooo... much better for a darn lot of reasons.
I thought about this from the first time I saw how units clump up in SC 2 and as someone else mentioned it also, this isn't the first topic regarding this.
What makes it different are the images. Damn, being able to see how it would look like makes me go nuts.
Anyway there are a few major cons mentioned in the topic and I think those are somewhat avoidable:
1: Breaking the balance achieved so far;
If they choose to implement this along with a new expansion it won't make much difference. As they add new units to the game it will affect the current balance. They will have to re-tweak the units anyway and not only the new ones, the old ones too as some will act differently along the new ones.
2: Making the AI spread the units for you it's making the game more dumb;
Who said this implies making the AI spread the units for you? As I get it, it's about making the AI so it will allow you to spread the units and keep them that way if you want.
If you, let's say, move/rally the units to one spot they should clump as they currently do. But if you spread them out they should retain the distance while moving and only clump back when they approach the destination or while passing a choke etc.
Giving the player different options (spread or clump the army) offers them the possibility to make decisions thus raising the skill ceiling and offering better games overall. Taking options away from the players (even if it makes the game harder) means "dumbing the game" as you (so called) elitists like to say.
Currently it is NOT possible to SPREAD the army (only while standing still but you'll have to move at one point). Currently you can DIVIDE the army in a few smaller groups of clumped units, but that's not spreading is dividing/splitting.
Replacing the "A"ttack command with (lets say) a password will make the game harder, but will it make the game better? Should Blizzard implement that? Definitely not.
So quit the fake elitism and try to think before making useless posts.
Now lets take a look at the pros.
1: It will make the game visually more appealing;
Damn, just think about this... Just imagine those 2 armies from the pictures (the zerg and protoss ones)... Imagine those lings with that speed running through the spread armies go surround those Immortals... Imagine those zealots charging from behind, again through that spread army just to be there as the first to engage in battle, just as a true zealot... Imagine those Immortals squeezing through that army to get in range to shoot the Roaches... Imagine those Roaches snipping the Templars that try to get in range for a storm or a feedback on the Infestors. All this will be possible and easily observable if the units stay spread once you spread them. Now compare it with the current situation. How appealing do you find those Immortals/Zealots/Templars dancing behind the Stalkers trying to get in range, or those lings/Ultralisks dancing and kissing behind the roaches and hydras.
2: It will raise the skill ceiling;
How much do you think it raises the skill ceiling not being able to observe what a ball of units is made off or not being able to target a certain unit because they clump so much?
Do you think currently it requires skill to land a good emp/storm/fungal? No, because the way the unit clump makes it worth as long as you don't storm/emp/fungal destructible rocks.
It will make the battles run a bit slower so you can actually observe what is going on and micro around. Currently is BOOM.. voila you lost to an 1a-er although you have triple his apm.
It will allow players to decide if they want to clump or to spread the units. A Terran will keep his bio clumped to maximize the dps but as soon as he sees banelings nearby he should better spread those out.
It will bring terrain advantage to a more important role. 2 high skilled players will easily spread/clump the army when necessary but if they catch the other one in a bad position where there is no place to spread the army, he will sure have a better hand in that fight. (I know position is still very important in the current state but this will allow you to maximize your positional advantage)
3: Giving back the units the old impressive fire power;
What gives you those nerd chills when you watch a Starcraft game? Those nukes that wrecks havoc in the opponents army, those siege tanks/storms/reavers/lurkers with OVERPOWERED damage. In Starcraft 2 those kind of units got nerfed, nerfed and nerfed more because, as long as you are not that bot with 1500 apm, your units will clump and that OP damage would make the game look broken.
Being able to spread the army will allow a good opponent to avoid that damage making his skill and mistake-less play stand out. But if your micro slips and your units clump, your opponent will be able to abuse that and land a storm that will rape your army. The kind of storm that gives nerd chills, not puff puff puff storms we see this days.
I could think of a few more but I think those are the more important ones.
The difference is amazing, making it worth it no matter how much work it involves. Although I don't think it would be that hard to implement.
Then again, for Blizzard are just resources spent useless. As the game was accepted in the current state, there is no point to invest in something that is not strictly necessary.
But we can still hope, Blizzard has the "bad" habit to impress.
Sorry for my english, as you probably can tell I'm not a native speaker.
|
People saying that it's a bad idea because you would have to rebalance the game and that would hurt the proscene. I just don't understand you. This is better for the game. It affects all races. If it does unbalance things then fine, I'm sure blizzard can balance it again. Besides, many people don't think the game is COMPLETELY balanced at the moment, so if anything it needs to be done now that the game is still young, instead of later when the game is even more stable. This is a must in my opinion to help with the games longetivity. I can't believe anyone would be fine with the way it is now, everything balled up, cant tell what is what, and small looking 200 armies. Anyone who ever watched bw would agree that the current way is just wrong.
|
You know what this reminds me of?
All those MBS versus Non-MBS threads. The guys arguing against this (they believe it will make the game 'easier' and it's 'too late') are more than likely the same guys who were chanting hooray for MBS. Kind of ironic once you think about it. Yes, finally the debate(s) have come full circle!
Excuse me for a second, but something has been irking me for a while.
Hearing someone say, "but this will make marine splitting obsolete!" boggles my head. Since when did we coin the expression marine splitting? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out banlings = bad. Clumped up marines = poof. So, MKP shows good micro in a televised match and all the sudden we're bombarded with this silly expression? O Brother, where art thou! You know what other old meme, expression comes to mind? "We v-tec players have been doing this for years!" Oh yes, I said it. I couldn't think of a better place to bring it back though.
Okay, back on subject before I get out of line.
Pwere that isn't what's being suggested at all. There wouldn't be a choice. This would be alteration to the AI pathing. So instead of clumping, they would move like the given screenshots. The way the AI is set in the game right now is limiting and aesthetically unpleasing. Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
The notion that this makes the game easier is nothing more than an optical illusion.
|
This should be implemented as part of Heart of the Swarm. even 200/200 balls don't look like very big armies anymore and it makes me sad.
Although each units buffer should be relative to its size. Zerglings should not spread as much as tanks, for example. And ideally it would only take effect while moving, and units should still cluster while going up a ramp.
I'm concerned about splash balance, but that should be adjusted. If it is released as part of HotS players/tournaments can still run on WoL for a month while everyone adjusts. (In theory)
But realistically I don't see it being implemented.
|
It would be interesting if there were "spread out" and "group up" movement buttons. Though it would definitely change gameplay, I'm not sure it would be completely detrimental. For example, if you spread out your marines to avoid lots of banelings or tank splash, sure your marines will stay alive longer, but your dps at the front of the line is now terrible.
|
This sounds really amazing as a Zerg player, but it seems like it would make Zerg overpowered vs units like tanks and colossi. And I'm not sure, it just seems like the game in general would have to be completely changed in order for this to work. Nice post though and that is awesome pictures.
|
On May 18 2011 06:37 StarStruck wrote:
Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
Changing the ai in the way that the OP suggests will not fix the problem with units humping each other trying to get into range. That issue has nothing to do with unit clumping, but rather the fact that the pathing system does not register units as path blockers. The same problem exists with force fields.
|
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote:
Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
|
On May 18 2011 06:52 GhettoSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote:
Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO). Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
Now maybe, SC2 tanks started out far far far stronger than BW tanks since they had smartfire and the same damage, plus of the course the clumping issue.
|
Another bonus for spread out units is that smaller and faster units will be able to get to the front faster, ie making pathing even better.
How many times do your zergligs get stuck inbetween roach balls because they're just stuck?
|
On May 18 2011 06:47 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 06:37 StarStruck wrote:
Quite frequently units won't fire because of this clumped pathing and they are out of range and these units try to get within range but they cannot because they are blocked by the other units because they are clumped, which is quite stupid.
Changing the ai in the way that the OP suggests will not fix the problem with units humping each other trying to get into range. That issue has nothing to do with unit clumping, but rather the fact that the pathing system does not register units as path blockers. The same problem exists with force fields.
Yes, it does because it effectively minimizes it. Unit clumping amplifies the unit dry hump especially in close quarters. The AI doesn't acknowledge other units as path blockers. Yeah, that is a given. This pathing helps nullify that.
On May 18 2011 06:52 GhettoSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote:
Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO). Everyone who played SCBW knows tanks were way stronger there than they are in SC2.
Yup, Blizzard keeps nerfing tanks in SC2 because of the AI alone. Started off at BW damage and the devs had to drop siege damage down to half that. lol
|
Can a map be made with this movement type? Is there anyone out there interested in making one so we can see how it works in practice?
|
Ok I believe this change would really be amazing for starcraft 2 so I decided to make a petition for it.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dynamicmovementsc2/
If you believe this would be good for starcraft 2 please sign it! Tell your friends etc.! Blizzard lately has been showing that they pay at least some attention to the competitive community's pleas....let's try to get their attention with this one.
Btw Nemukid one of your points was stated really well so I used it and fixed some of the grammar I hope you don't mind.
|
On May 18 2011 05:52 sushiman wrote:
You're completely misunderstanding. In BW, you could have a formation, yes. But it would only be maintained by using magic box, e.g. moving straight in one direction. Meeting attacking units would break the formation as units engage, as well as terrain. It doesn't mean the army will be separated at all times because you split the units at home.
Let's say it's working like in the OP's pics of the marine army. That army is trotting down to the Zerg base, who is going to defend with ling/bling. The formation will break and start to become chaotic as marines chase stuff and whatnot, but the rough shape will remain, with marines spread out over a big area rather than a clump. A shape that is massively detrimental to the baneling user.
And AOE would still be powerful. It just wouldn't kill an army in 10 seconds flat. -_-
Well power is relative. AOE is powerful, but units like marines are also powerful, and AOE is the only thing holding them in check. If you nerf AOE (this would be an indirect nerf), then marines would be OP. So you'd have to nerf marines, making Terran UP, and so on. Changing such a fundamental aspect of the game throws absolutely everything up in the air.
And seriously, this baneling vs marine argument is getting tiresome. Could people PLEASE watch some marines vs lurkers, scourge vs wraith splitting, reaver baiting and such things? Dynamic movement wouldn't destroy that 'epic' marine dodging - the damn banelings wouldn't go in a single file anymore, making dodging potentially harder if anything.
Well no it would just make banelings flat out awful but anyway. I'm not saying a game with this kind of movement wouldn't be fun or have micro or whatever. I am saying it would require a drastic rebalance and even redesign of some units/spells that it would become a different game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
