|
Update: 7/26/2012
Since so many people in this thread commented that death ball play arose from unlimited unit selection here you might be interested in this quote from the Lead Programmer and Producer of Warcraft 1. I have heard many people argue on Teamliquid over the years that warcraft/starcraft had limited unit selection because it wasn't technilogically possible or because it never occurred to the development team. It turns out that that was not the case at all.
"We decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II."
-Patrick Wyatt, Producer/Lead Programmer of Warcraft 1
http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1
So it appears that they added limited unit selection specifically to avoid a "deathball" syndrome.
Original Post
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Lovedrop/tsl3/finals/g7p4.jpg) Breaking up the Death Ball
The Deathball. It is a phenomenon that has come to define almost every game of Starcraft 2. Huge armies grouped together that move together until one big battle that determines the game. The problem primarily arose out of changes to the UI, both improved pathing and unlimited unit selection. As we learn more about Heart of the Swarm it becomes clear that the developers are focused on breaking up the death ball. I will give some examples
Widow Mine: Rather than re-introduce the spider mine the devs created a new mine that is best used alone out in the field. This mine takes up supply thus pulling supply from the ball of death. The Widow Mine also does not combo well with the siege tank since if the tank blows up the unit before the mine detonates it is wasted. On top of all this the Widow Mine encourages enemy players to break up their deathballs after the mine latches on a unit inside the deathball.
Building Attacking Nydus Worm: "Because there’s scenarios with Zerg right now where the Mutalisk raiding is glorious, and then they shut it down, and you’re like, “I guess I’m done raiding.” And that kind of – that’s sounds fun, we want to split up the armies, spread everybody out, get everybody doing different stuff and make the deathballs a little smaller"
http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/1160-dustin-browder-interview-mlg-anaheim-2012
Tempest: The Tempest takes a different approach to pulling units out of the deathball. Its incredible range means it doesn't have to physically be in the ball to contribute its fire power. This range is described as more "strategic" than "tactical" giving presence to an entire region of the map.
Oracle: Like the Widow Mine the Oracle takes up supply pulling supply away from the Deathball and like the Building Attacking Nydus Worm the Oracle is a raider which creates mini-battles away from the main death ball.
So what do you guys think of Blizzards attempts to break up the death ball? Will it work? Do certain strategies (more raiders, pulling supply, "strategic" range) for breaking the ball up work more than others? What do you think the best solution is?
|
It think with units that "pull units out of a death ball to thin it out" won't prevent both parties to build up those.
My direct suggestion would be to allow less units to be grouped up in a control group. I don't think of a number as small as in BW (12 i guess, right?), but maybe something like 24, so one page of a control group?
|
I think with Zerg, you would have a better argument talking about the vipers and its abilities.
I don't think they necessarily are intended to break up deathballs, the oracle and tempest as reasons to take up supply is a stretch at best.
You also have abilities that suggest more death balls, like hydra speed to keep up with units, swarm host to create a larger "swarm" attack, a giant engulfing attack and the mothership upgrade that can take large groups and port them back.
|
I dont even think the deatball is a problem anymore. The whole thing was present like 1 year ago, but nowadays there is so much harass/drop involved in all races.
also i dont think those new units will change anything in that regard. yes there might be more harass, but in the end you need a fighting army.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
WIth new raiders you will have 1-2 less zealots/roaches or 3-4 marines less, nothing more.
It's more interesting how old unit combinations will work vs new ones. Like BattleHelions + marauders or Warhounds against protoss and zerg.
ANd also remember, that widow mine can be edited hugely, so it can take ZERO time do detonate, but it's a new ability for raven, that got cheaper cost. It's only example. That widow mine can be built from tech-lab only or realized as a new ability for Warhound.
|
It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. They might, if poorly defended, give you a slight economic advantage, but if your deathball loses to the enemy's deathball, you still lose because he walks over your base.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
|
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
|
On July 02 2012 01:01 Existor wrote:
WIth new raiders you will have 1-2 less zealots/roaches or 3-4 marines less, nothing more.
It's more interesting how old unit combinations will work vs new ones. Like BattleHelions + marauders or Warhounds against protoss and zerg.
ANd also remember, that widow mine can be edited hugely, so it can take ZERO time do detonate, but it's a new ability for raven, that got cheaper cost. It's only example. That widow mine can be built from tech-lab only or realized as a new ability for Warhound.
Come on, don't act like everyone's just going to make one of these units and call it a day. Imagine having 4 oracles shutting down 4 bases of mining at the same time if you have the multitasking to pull it off. Imagine having 2 tempest on two different sides of the map, harassing the production in the main as well as the mining on the 5th. I dgaf about the new unit comps, i'm happy that large amounts of mutlitasking will be rewarded and even encouraged in HoTS.
|
On July 02 2012 00:57 enemy2010 wrote:
It think with units that "pull units out of a death ball to thin it out" won't prevent both parties to build up those.
My direct suggestion would be to allow less units to be grouped up in a control group. I don't think of a number as small as in BW (12 i guess, right?), but maybe something like 24, so one page of a control group?
no, purposely restricting UI to be unintuitive is a taboo in any designer or UI book. Not only are they frustrating, you are alienating a good portion of the playerbase when you do something like this that modern computer users/gamers aren't used to
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
No it's not. Not when it ends in 2 messy seconds and also the game 2 seconds later.
|
I think instead of focusing on units to break up deathballs they should focus on maps. The less minerals/gas per expansion is idea is best IMO. Make it easy to take up FRAGILE bases all over the map, and watch players skirmish with handfuls of units all over the map. Right now the "community" keeps giving blizzard shit for the maps they make, yet only support maps that let you too safely make three bases, and now four that are easily secured from harassment. "Oh noes. Rocks. Veto. Oh noes, it's too hard to take a 4th on antiga, veto" I think the small 4th base on daybreak is more of what we need to see.
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
Are you serious? As a spectator when I'm watching a ZvP I tab out for a few minutes because everything in the first 10 minutes is just watching two guys macro.
|
On July 02 2012 01:12 mastergriggy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the worse thing you can ask for if you are a spectator . Fixed. Death balls are boring to watch. Spread it out a bit and let the viewer be fully immersed with the battle raging around every side of the screen is so much more entertaining.
Best games are the ones where the observer can't keep up with everything ;9
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 Fragile51 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:01 Existor wrote:
WIth new raiders you will have 1-2 less zealots/roaches or 3-4 marines less, nothing more.
It's more interesting how old unit combinations will work vs new ones. Like BattleHelions + marauders or Warhounds against protoss and zerg.
ANd also remember, that widow mine can be edited hugely, so it can take ZERO time do detonate, but it's a new ability for raven, that got cheaper cost. It's only example. That widow mine can be built from tech-lab only or realized as a new ability for Warhound. Come on, don't act like everyone's just going to make one of these units and call it a day. Imagine having 4 oracles shutting down 4 bases of mining at the same time if you have the multitasking to pull it off. Imagine having 2 tempest on two different sides of the map, harassing the production in the main as well as the mining on the 5th. I dgaf about the new unit comps, i'm happy that large amounts of mutlitasking will be rewarded and even encouraged in HoTS.
Multitasking? Lol, it will take virtually no multitasking to manage 4 Oracles, since they're so fast and are guaranteed to survive. Tempests won't be a worthwhile investment unless you're SUPER ahead, because both Terran and Zerg already mass up Vikings/Corruptors respectively.
|
Blizzard seems less creative than I would like. Just really poor game design in the first place.
|
I've always felt that the primary cause of the "deathball" phenomenon was that fact that the units can overlap (graphically) so much. "Lack of significant AoE" doesn't make that much sense as a reason. Colossus, Tanks, Storm, Fungal, for instance are all area effects, and logically players would benefit from spreading out their units (except maybe against the Colossus, where spreading out the units just lines them up to get roasted...?).
When you compare (as the closest parallel) Brood War, the difference isn't really the number of units in a battle, but how much space the battle takes up. Maxed metal pushing into maxed Protoss is going to be the same size armies no matter which game you're talking about. There was a thorough thread discussing the visual changes of clumping vs. spreading, graphically, somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.
|
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote:
I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
what the...
|
The viper will cause the protoss to split up the army as they won't risk their colossus, the swarm host will be detached from the zerg from as their most useful stationary, the widow mine will "desupply" the mmm army as well as the mech army. I have full confidence in Blizzard and Dustin Browder.
|
On July 02 2012 00:57 enemy2010 wrote:
It think with units that "pull units out of a death ball to thin it out" won't prevent both parties to build up those.
My direct suggestion would be to allow less units to be grouped up in a control group. I don't think of a number as small as in BW (12 i guess, right?), but maybe something like 24, so one page of a control group?
Been thinking the same thing since the whole unlimited selection came out. 1 page / Group still has plenty units in them, and you could still control your entire army with only 3 groups. Whether DB would disappear completely, im not too sure, but it'd def. help.
EDIT : I see a lot of suggestions like 'FRB', more haras units, smaller ctrlgrps, etc,... however, only 1 might not fix the DB problem altogether, but if we were to COMBINE all the suggestions, we might get the results we are aiming for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
