|
SoCal8907 Posts
i think its a good thing for the game however it can be extremely unforgiving. it increases the skill cap for those that spread and prepare for their opponents army and is unforgiving for the unprepared baller.
take fungal for instance - i agree that the patch was necessary because it was too easy-mode. now, it requires more precision to chain fungal to kill units which was absolutely necessary. however there are still complaints (significantly less, anyway) that fungal is too strong.
well, thats not exactly true. you clumping your units is too weak. if you use micro and splitting, you will notice that fungal becomes exponentially less effective and it becomes difficult for zerg to decide what to fungal. often times, this engagement requires a retreat and loss of units for nothing (due to siege tank fire, forcefields, colossus, storm, etc).
i can't tell you how many zvz's i've won by pre-spreading my units and having a better unit concave where fungals were hitting a single row of roaches instead of my opponent's 2 rows. or how much more DPS i get because my hydras aren't clusterfucking and taking their sweet-ass time to get in range. same with roaches. i'm sure this is especially true for the balling-terrans vs the spreading-terrans. even for colossus! imagine the sheer dps if you had your colossus lined parallel to the MM of your opponent and zealots providing even surface area (no 2 zealots having to run around each other) to slam against the terran ball? its tremendous and partially why i feel like i see protoss losing big engagements. conversely its why i see them winning engagements as well. take it from a zerg - surface area totally matters.
conversely, balling does make attacking with small numbers of marines really good. like REALLY good. i've seen players micro around an extractor and kill an obscene amount of zerglings because of stutter-stepping withe a ball. but its only as good as the other player allows it to be. but it also makes forcefields and baneling splash really good. it requires little micro on the terran's end but it can be punished pretty hard too. suddenly one baneling is hitting all of those marines instead of a few.
i guess my final comment would be the mid-game ball. its pretty potent and can punish pretty hard (especially groups of banelings). but i think, from a zerg perspective, it can be dealt with by preparing properly via creep spread, premaking banelings and creating more zerglings as the push is coming (instead of waiting for your new lings to pop and making banelings with THEM). with protoss, im not sure what to tell ya. you really do need aoe and rushing to aoe can be punished a mid-game tank pressure. i guess scouting and reading your opponent is really whats important.
TL;DR: with proper preparation, balling punishes the baller. not the person who is properly prepared.
|
On December 29 2011 12:19 Hinanawi wrote:
It's terrible, and so is smartcast. The two combined are just a colossal combo of awful.
I see what you did there...
|
I think that the game is fine, most of what people are saying about micro in broodwar was to make up for design flaws (muta micro ) with ou it Terran would be having a large advantage in the match up . Peopl complain about sc2 but why do we all just try to make up for the perceived flaws? I'm sure the reason broodwar did so well was that blizzard wasn't gearing for a highly. Competitive gAme. While in sc2 they were gearing for exactly that! They made it easier for units to move around , made spell casting more effective (fungals and storm vs clumps emps to a lesser extent) So with competitive gaming in mind but still wanting People of all levels to enjoy try make it so units can ball up and fight eachother but really reward people who position and micro . There is nothing wrong with the game it's what you make of it and how you look at it from multiple views
|
maybe clumping should be more difficult? require more clicking?
it's basically a SCBW vs SC2 control argument i think :\
|
The clumping of units in SC2 DOES NOT increase the necessity to spread your units to avoid AOE compared to BW. Why? Because AOE was much more powerful in BW than in SC2. AOE has actually been massively nerfed in SC2 compared to BW, BECAUSE of the constant clumping of units.
How does Blizzard solve this problem? Easy! Increase the collision size of units, re-buff the potency of AOE, and re-balance the game around this simple design change.
What is the positive of such a change? AOE remains relatively as powerful as it is now, so no real change there. However, manual positioning of parts of your army in fights will matter more (it will take longer for a more spread-out army to automatically form a concave, for instance, and will encourage and REWARD the better player more for preemptively setting up an arc).
|
Really the only negative that I see is that it makes splash damage too viable. You can't win a long macro game without splash; At least, it will be a lot harder to.
|
Canada11212 Posts
On December 30 2011 10:07 LilClinkin wrote:
The clumping of units in SC2 DOES NOT increase the necessity to spread your units to avoid AOE compared to BW. Why? Because AOE was much more powerful in BW than in SC2. AOE has actually been massively nerfed in SC2 compared to BW, BECAUSE of the constant clumping of units.
How does Blizzard solve this problem? Easy! Increase the collision size of units, re-buff the potency of AOE, and re-balance the game around this simple design change.
What is the positive of such a change? AOE remains relatively as powerful as it is now, so no real change there. However, manual positioning of parts of your army in fights will matter more (it will take longer for a more spread-out army to automatically form a concave, for instance, and will encourage and REWARD the better player more for preemptively setting up an arc).
I 100% agree. The fix (especially if combined with no smart casting) would make AoE much more powerful. This however is such a powerful argument:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bEMSz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KTFUx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HF7cc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IVtz4.jpg)
Doesn't that little switch make everything more epic and understandable. I can identify units individually and pick out which ones the pro is micro'ing, individually. Rather than vaguely seeing a blob with a variety of units.
And no matter how good the pro's get, it will never look like this when the armies are in transit. There's no reason or cause to split units when you're sending units from one side of the map to the other. However, aesthetically, it makes all the difference in the world.
In addition, stalker with collosi on top in a giant ball not only naturally occurs due to mechanics, but it is desirable due to concentrated dps in the smallest amount of area will murder spread out units. It's why focus fire works. The more volleys there are, the better off, focus fire is because there's less stuff firing back at you each time.
But forget about mechanics, just from an observer point of few. Which looks better? Clumped or unclumped? Which is more understandable at a glance? Which one can you identify the armies by their parts rather than a vague blob?
|
as long as there are enough aoe units then it shouldnt be an issue as engagin gin the death ball style is discrouged as it then allows ur opponent to maximise their aoe units dps. thus it would be a skill to control, ur uinits so that uy have the most efficent formation i.e. largest number of units engaged whilst minimal number of units of ur opponenet engaged while at the same time being spread enough so that u would be vunerable to aoe attacks
|
The thing is, it's useless to discuss about that, Blizzard said multiple time that they wont change the way unit AI work. :/
|
On December 30 2011 03:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 01:28 gn0m wrote:On December 30 2011 00:34 Big J wrote:On December 29 2011 23:39 gn0m wrote:
I dont think that the unit clumping in SC2 increases nor decreases the skill level particularly much, it’s just the way the game works. That being said, I think that it’s a big flaw since it creates dull blob vs. blob battles. In BW, battles can stretch over several screens which create a much more epic feeling compared to two blobs trying to deal as much DPS as possible. The clumping also makes it harder to see whats going on, which is a big no-no for a game that aspires to be an eSport.
Also, the comments about how unit clumping creates so much micro are just ridiculous. There is less micro in SC2 period, and it has nothing to do with clumping, but with auto surround, smart target, smart cast, unlimited unit selection etc. SC2 is an excellent game but anyone saying that is has more micro than broodwar needs a reality check.
As micro in bw and sc2 is limited by apm and not by possibilities it is simply impossible for one of those 2 games to have "more micro". the difference is how the micro looks like. I disagree, its not only that some micro stuff is easier to execute due to the streamlined design, but some possibilities have also been removed. Day9 talked about it and described it beautifully so I encourage you to have a look: http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982 Yes and no... Day9 is right and everything but (as far as i remember the episode) he talks exclusively about what is now not possible anymore and not what is possible now. F.e.: infinite unit selection allows gives me more spare apm to do something else as well. i dont use x apm to command 50units from a to b. Im only using x/5 now or even less for the same thing which means i have still a lot of ressources to do stuff like macroing or small assaults/defenses while I do this. Especially if you watch supercreative players like TLO you will find out just how true this can be and how many times x you still can squeeze out of your units if you just outmicro your opponent on multiple fronts at the same time.
As I see it, there are two essential changes in SC2 micro compared to BW micro. One is that a lot of things have been simplified, such as smart cast and all the other stuff I mentioned in my previous post. Although I think that Blizzard went a bit overboard with the idea of making SC2 accessible to all kind of players, I still can appreciate how, for example, unlimited unit selection is a necessary feature in a modern RTS game. Players should be able to move their entire army without extensive APM usage – I totally get how that appeals to the broad mass of gamers.
The other change however is a different story, and that is the limited possibilities in SC2 for an extremely talented player to beat a very good player in a micro battle. In SC2, it is not only easier to execute simple commands but it is also harder for a better player to radically affect the outcome of a battle due to superior micro. This is a big problem. In the currant state of SC2, there isn’t sufficient ways to maximize the usage of units. As Day9 puts it, proper muta micro increases the utility of mutas by 9 times whereas good SC2 micro increases the utility by 1,5 times. In BW, I love how amazing micro can change the outcome of a game. SC2 units on the other hand are easy to handle, and to what you want them to do, but in the meantime they are not the dangerous tool they were in BW, in the hands of a progamer.
Moreover, many SC2 players, in my opinion, have a flawed view on this matter. As you put it, “more spare APM gives players the opportunity to do other stuff, like macroing and whatnot”. SC2 macro is already much easier so I’m not going to get into that. But my point is that there isn’t that much to do with the spare APM – the possibilities to spend spare APM on game changing micro is already caped. Please note that I’m not saying that there isn’t stuff you can do with spare APM. Neither BW nor SC2 can ever be played at the maximum level; it isn’t humanly possible to have perfect micro in either game. The thing is that the spare APM cannot be utilized to increase the efficiency in a way that is possible in BW.
Especially judging from multidrops and marine vs baneling battles I just think day9 purposly talks sc2 control possibilities a little bit down to avoid debates like (isnt 3x better than 9x because it means that you simply cant win just by being good with mutalisks)
I’m not going to pretend that I speak for Day9 in any way, but I think it’s far more likely that he is very cautious about criticizing SC2 than that he is purposely talks down the possibilities of SC2. Baneling vs. Marine micro is a great example of a skill rewarding, dynamic micro situation, but unfortunately there are few situation like this in SC2 (and multidrops are in no way more present in SC2 than BW). Either way, I strongly believe that a game that rewards a really talented player is a more interesting game, even if that means that someone can win a game with excellent muta micro alone.
a lot of it will/might just come down to development in gameplay. right now we hardly ever see people really use their armies all the time, but what if the game starts to get figuered out. what if people really develope those playstyles in which a protoss exclusivly builds units at proxy pylons and zerg cant afford to build a unit "just in case". Honestly, sc2 develops a lot but in my eyes it still feels like people just pee their pants all day instead of using their possibilities they are still philosophing over ways in which they could lose. (ever seen that game: min0-6 using everx unit they have to harass buildings and control the map. min6-10 setting up a first army from 2bases. min10-15 sending just as few units out so it doesnt matter in terms of defence. then one big fight and over is the game) realisticly one person should always try to be aggressive necause only one player can win a battle. even more so if the game is a little more statistical, as then it is easier to judge wether it is you or your opponent that has the opportunity armywise to do so... but i think we still are not there. jjakji vs leenock was a good start and players like HerO or TLO already generate most of their strength from being in their opponents face. Its still T-5+ years before we should start to talk about bw and sc2 in one sentence -if we ever should!)
I’m not quite sure what your point is here. I agree that SC2 micro will probably be better in the future but at this moment I feel that the limit is set by game design, not the lack of skilled players. Better players will emerge into the scene but there is only so much they can do with what is given to them.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
One problem with the Day9 video is that people are throwing the 9x for BW vs the 1.5x for SC2 that he stated like it was a fact, or that it he had done any demonstrable research to come to those numbers. They were almost completely random. While saying that the cap for unit efficiency due to micro is higher in BW than in SC2 is an arguable point, I don't think throwing out numbers like that are at all accurate, and people keep saying it like it's a given truth.
|
Please add a pool 
I think is worse, from the spectator view and for the gamer point, for a ton of reasons.
Clumping makes micro easier (no ofense but those that say that it makes it harder have no idea what are they talking about), is uglier to watch and the "auto arc" favors fast movement 1a units (stimmed marauders, roaches)
|
On December 30 2011 11:09 MCDayC wrote:
One problem with the Day9 video is that people are throwing the 9x for BW vs the 1.5x for SC2 that he stated like it was a fact, or that it he had done any demonstrable research to come to those numbers. They were almost completely random. While saying that the cap for unit efficiency due to micro is higher in BW than in SC2 is an arguable point, I don't think throwing out numbers like that are at all accurate, and people keep saying it like it's a given truth.
Agreed, the numbers are totally arbitrary but the point remains valid. There is just more potential micro power in BW units but perhaps not x9 compared to x1,5. I don’t think that Day9 intended to put numbers on micro ability, he just used them to prove his point.
|
It's not even that simple:
Here's something I posted while the game was still in alpha about the pathing, and specifically how starcraft pathing works:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=57970
+ Show Spoiler +On August 15 2007 15:09 Zanno wrote:Here's a comparison of SC pathing vs war3 pathing. From watching gameplay vids, it SEEMS to me, that units are using war3 style pathing, except clumping together more heavily. Someone who went to Blizzcon can confirm this. Edit: Seems like some people can't read, so I'm going to emphasize this very important point with some bold italic underlining: THE FORMATION BUTTON IN WARCRAFT 3 CHANGES THE PATHFINDING SO THAT YOUR SELECTION MOVES AT THE SPEED OF THE SLOWEST UNIT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNITS GETTING CLUMPED UP INTO A NICE LOOK GRID, AND THERE IS NO WAY TO DISABLE THIS ASPECT OF THE WAR3 PATHING!!!SC pathing: units move parallel to each other, unless they're going down a ramp or something else is obstructing their path, or the formation is outside of the "magical boxes". ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc2.jpg) It's a little inaccurate at times, but it generally gets the right idea. ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc4.jpg) (edit) If the units are outside of the magic boxes, they all converge on a single point, regardless of whether or not the point is inside or outside of the unit formation. ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc9.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_sc10.jpg) War pathing: units fall into a nice looking box ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_war1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_war2.jpg) Oh no! All that time I spent setting up a nice little formation to protect my archmage was completely wasted. ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_war3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://zanno.oddwebsite.com/pathing_war4.jpg) It doesn't matter if they are tightly packed or spread out, they still fall into the same spread box formation. You might also want to take note that the position of the box is dependent on the direction you clicked the command in. This box may look nice, but it has huge implications on unit formations, in other words, you can't set one up! Toggling the formation button does nothing - that sets it so that a group of units moves at the same speed as the slowest unit. Someone from Blizzcon can probably answer this. I've noticed big units like siege tanks tripping up as they try to rotate around each other, instead of moving parallel to one another so they wouldn't have to get around each other. It also seems like no matter what the player does, marines travel in huge boxy clusters. That box may LOOK nice, but it plays horrible, and out of all of the features that you can argue newbie up war3, this is by far the biggest one. The most optimal pathing formation is one where all your units move parallel to each other - refer to 1,000 vods of players setting up zergling surrounds, moving perfectly set up zealot walls to charge tank lines and block zerglings from hitting your templar, and deliberately calculated tank formations. With war3 style pathing, these formations would immediately be broken up in a single move command. I don't understand why anyone else hasn't brought this up but me, and whenever I posted about it during war3 beta, I got ignored. This is a HUGE FUCKING DEAL and we need to make a lot of noise about it to get this fixed as soon as possible. Unlike a lot of other comments about war3 in this forum, this is not a blind "war3=noob" flame, it's a serious issue that's gone without discussion.
What we know now, is that the pathing works similar to warcraft 3 except it arranges units in a circle instead of a square.
In starcraft you are often quite deliberate with your unit formations, and as a medicore BW PvT player I can tell you that very subtle differences in unit formation I can't even put into words make the difference between you crushing a tank line with minimal losses or losing your whole army killing like 3 tanks and a bunch of vultures. But in starcraft 2, every time you go to attack, your army formation is completely reset.
If they really want to fix this in the most baller passive way possible, that noobs will never notice, would be to implement BW style pathfinding for control groups with 12 units or less where your units stay in the formation you put them unless they can't.
It has nothing to do with being "bad", all it needs to do is move units in parallel. Buggy dragoon AI can fuck off, I don't miss it, I just want my units to do what I tell them.
What honestly surprises me, isn't so much that I called this right away, but rather the issue is exactly as severe I thought it would be. Maybe if we are lucky, we can get it fixed in HOTS, but I think one of the problem we're having Blizzard is that I haven't seen a single pro player articulate why BW pathing was better
|
On December 30 2011 11:14 Belha wrote:Please add a pool I think is worse, from the spectator view and for the gamer point, for a ton of reasons. Clumping makes micro easier (no ofense but those that say that it makes it harder have no idea what are they talking about), is uglier to watch and the "auto arc" favors fast movement 1a units (stimmed marauders, roaches)
Poll: Unit organisationUnits always stay spread out (31) 69% Keep it as it is - clumped up (7) 16% Allow unit battle formations (7) 16% 45 total votes Your vote: Unit organisation (Vote): Units always stay spread out
(Vote): Keep it as it is - clumped up
(Vote): Allow unit battle formations
|
i'm not sure i can comment on this, but i always subconsciously think in terms of zerglings, marines, and zealots & compare the different feelings between both games when it comes to engagements.
simply put, i just think it is mostly terran bio being made stronger for starcraft 2. the units stay together very naturally, and yet you can avoid AOE with them extremely quickly. medics are no longer part of the ground army, but are further along the tech tree and are much more expensive. it is the image of bio being easy to control and easy to make efficient that it makes it hard for me to wrap my head around everything else that matters.
zealot & dragoon were the bread and butter. it was how you controlled them, and the ratio between how many of each were made that made every bit of difference to me. the units would stray and target fast moving, high-damage-dealing units even if they were no match for them (zealot vs vulture). it is now like moving against a wall of units and is very hard to separate an army that remains together. maybe it's for the best, i don't know.
all i know is that my images of zealots, marines, and zerglings are forever shattered ):
|
It's like stack of doom in Civ4, sure it's convenient when you play, but is it enjoyable for spectators?
|
sc2 is way too easy for anyone to play... and with this spread out change, thing will change that a bit
im all for this change, so i can play less and watch more in the future
|
those of you who want unclumped i just assume you want terran bio ball to be unstoppable
|
if units didnt clump protoss would be extremely underpowered. All our army compositions depend on splash damage. Also it's not that hard to spread out your unites a little to do less damage. And when you look at it from a point of realisticly speaking its a game not real life it doesnt have to be realistic. The game like mechanics and tricks that you can take advantage of give players and spectators even more to be entertained by. In brood war it was harder to macro thus a moving alot of your armies then macroing up took a lot more effort so alot less control could be given to the units while in starcraft 2 macro is a piece of cake )compared to broodwar). It takes like 50 apm to macro @ a masters league level and this allows you to have more time to control your army so I would argue that It is a positive asset to the game rather than a flaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
