|
This was something that was discussed a lot some time ago - namely i'd like to keep an open mind towards control groups.
At the current time we're seeing a lot of people complaining about a lot of AoE effects. Without a doubt this is because units stack so close together now and all armies are in a huge ball being attack moved into each other.
Am i the only one who feels kind of cheap, having 150 food on 1 control group? Could the quarrel with armies being always clumped up in balls be partly due to the majority of players having all of their army on 1 control group? It's my experience most players do, especially the zerg players.
Now - there are certainly some issues to be solved with glitching ground units, when you have alot of (ground)units they seem to be able to stack together and bug out a bit.
As an example take a look at these screenshots where a zerg players stacks up a lot of speedlings and somehow glitches them through Zealots on hold position.
Unit stacking to glitch through a blocked ramp
Now - there are some issues with the density of armies, this is not only making some AoE abilities too strong, but it is also making a large army less impressive aesthatically.
Somehow the mechanic of units seem to be changed - but in addition, i'd like some cap on control groups.. It doesn't have to be a whole lot, i'm thinking 24 or something in the likes of that, i don't know, i've logged soon 200 games and well, it just feels sort of cheap that 1a2a3a is now 1a.
So, what could be the solution to these issues? I have my reservations about SC2 if this is not addressed somehow.
|
maybe this will just make room for a new "skill". if you want to play better you have to decide what and how much of it you group together. i wouldn't remove the "unlimited" unit selection because it may come in handy during play.
+its much easier to flank with more groups than just 1 containing all units.
|
i dont get why you want blizzard to insert a cap to unit control when splitting your army yourself gives you an advantage over some one who doesnt, like not getting raped by 2 emps/storm/fungal growth on all your units and getting a concave on his units faster
|
Units in general should have larger collision sizes.
The models can remain the same size, they'll just have a bit of breathing room.
|
On March 03 2010 04:56 lololol wrote:
Units in general should have larger collision sizes.
The models can remain the same size, they'll just have a bit of breathing room.
i agree to 100 )
when u clump marines the merge if u zoom in, its lol
|
On March 03 2010 04:56 lololol wrote:
Units in general should have larger collision sizes.
The models can remain the same size, they'll just have a bit of breathing room.
I agree, the unit collision size should be a bit larger.
|
LOL the only argument that op presented was that it's cheap because it is convenient. 1a is cheap but 1a2a3a is not.
Sad pathetic complaint.
|
I also agree with those proposing an increase in unit collision size. So far I have yet to see any real benefit towards having units cluster up so much.
On the plus side:
- It makes unit pathing a little smarter.
But on the negative side:
- It makes units harder to select, thus negatively impacting micro.
- It hurts visual clarity. Hard to tell units apart when they have no sense of personal space. The fact that explosion effects are even fancier only worsens the problem, since instead of explosions being spread out, they're all concentrated on the unit "ball".
- Makes battles seem less epic. I don't know about you guys, but I loved how battles in SC1 could span across 2-3 screens with mass destruction strewn across the whole battlefield. I'm not a big fan of the whole "two tightly packed balls attacking each other in only one screen" thing that SC2 has going for it.
- Makes spells seem less epic. Since units cluster up, AoE spells have to be nerfed to make up for it, so you end up with smaller psi storms, smaller nukes, and so on. Even if the damage is similar, it makes units "feel" weaker.
So yes, big thumbs up towards anything that would make unit collision size bigger.
|
Ewwww the clumping!!!! Its awful and terrible. If there is less clumping, micro will be more prominent as smart players will have to handle thier units more carefully more maximum dps. On the other hand, aoe spells will probably need a bit of a buff to make sure that players who dont split thier armies are not getting rewarded ^_^.
|
Definitely need more spacing between units. Hard to micro and see clearly, bad for both playing and watching. Put 30 tanks in a clump and siege half of those, then try to distinguish the unsieged ones from the rest. Good luck!
Hint: Sieged turrets are somewhat green, so try look for green stuff.
|
yeah i'd like to see more spaces between units too... on the other hand splitting your units and not leave them in a clump requires more skill micro management.
|
I think the collision size complaint really has merit here. The way it's now is just too crowded as pointed out, and I have nothing more to say but to agree with every point made after it was brought up here in this thread.
Can some beta player who has access to the official forums post this suggestion there?
|
I wouldn't say that the collision sizes need to be increased so much as the group pathing code needs fixed - units need to try to spread out a bit on thier own.
|
Instead of getting rid of unlimited unit selection, which can be really useful, there should be an easy way to create "sub-control groups". I would like to be able to press TAB while I have a control group selected to switch between sub-groups of units that I have previously defined.
For example, while I have some units of a control group selected I could press SHIFT+1 to create "sub-group 1" within that control group. So the units within that control group have now been divided into two groups. Now when I have the main control group selected and hit TAB I get the first sub-group of units that I had defined and if I hit TAB again I get the remaining units. Similarly if I press SHIFT+2 (etc.) I would define subsequent sub-groups.
|
the aspects play in with each other.
we get better unit pathing and unit control, but that also means clumping of units. AoE and splash have a smaller role in this game it seems, so clumping isnt as big a problem. especially since most of the time i throw all my units into one control group anyway
|
I've had a game where I had about 100 3-2 marines and the damage they put out is pretty nuts. They move like a river and do considerably more damage than SC1 marines due to the much improved AI. They are also much more vulnerable to splash though. I think it helps the marines more, however.
|
Hadn't seen something like this posted yet, seems like a topic people might care to collect opinions on.
EDIT: SHOULD READ INCREASE!! I'm a moron.
Poll: Should Blizzard increase the collision size of most sc2 units?
(Vote): Yes, they clump up a little too much.
(Vote): No, things are fine as they are.
|
the unit size complain i think is huuuugely valid, being able to block a ramp shouldnt be a strenuous task of placing 4 zealots perfectly, 2 zealots with a few little gaps between them should not be able to fit 2 limbo lines of zerglings thru as it is in the current patch, just by the visuals it appears like they shouldnt be able to do this.
|
On March 03 2010 07:17 LaughingTulkas wrote:Hadn't seen something like this posted yet, seems like a topic people might care to collect opinions on. Poll: Should Blizzard reduce the collision size of most sc2 units?( Vote): Yes, they clump up a little too much. ( Vote): No, things are fine as they are.
It should be "increase the collision size".
|
On March 03 2010 08:43 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2010 07:17 LaughingTulkas wrote:Hadn't seen something like this posted yet, seems like a topic people might care to collect opinions on. Poll: Should Blizzard reduce the collision size of most sc2 units?( Vote): Yes, they clump up a little too much. ( Vote): No, things are fine as they are. It should be " increase the collision size".
You are correct. I am dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
