On November 17 2012 08:18 iPAndi wrote: Deathballs is not a "playstyle", its when you can make an giant army that will move around in a small space. Sc2 makes it so that since units naturally get too close to each other, and as they move they get even closer, to render this very possible. The other day I tuned into a broodwwar stream, and i saw sooo much units, then looked at supply and I was amazed it was around 130. The army was so spread out it was several screens long. It had to do with unit movement as well, as the armies would not flow violently forward unless there was some degree of freedom. In briodwar people realized that clumping units was imba as fk, and that's why muta stacking was so popular. You could not stack, or place very closely, ground units. Deathballimg is a natural state that will occur in sc2 because of clumping units on the pathfinding algorithm, where they are actually getting closer as you move the armies. This is the problem, this is what should be changed. Imo units should have a "comfort area" in addition to a collision area. This comfort area is basically the amount of spacing a unit wants to have upon arrival to a destination. Units would separate once they have arrived, as well as separate while on the move. Spamming move would squeeze them up to the collision area, but once idle, units would try to push each other again to their comfort zones. This would help by not restricting the pathfinding per se debut adding a simple ai behavior on top of the current system. I think this should be played with, and maybe mix it up with unit sizes.
PD: writing from phone, excuse grammar!
The clumping is the result of trying to stop this sort of crap from happening.
I know what pathfinding is, is that what you thought upon reading my post? Please try a bit harder to understand d what people actually take time writing, and not just throw a video because you didnt actually pay attention. I stated NOT to change pathfinding, but instead add an additional ai comfort layer that will suggest units to move further from each other as they move and stay still.
On November 17 2012 08:18 iPAndi wrote: Deathballs is not a "playstyle", its when you can make an giant army that will move around in a small space. Sc2 makes it so that since units naturally get too close to each other, and as they move they get even closer, to render this very possible. The other day I tuned into a broodwwar stream, and i saw sooo much units, then looked at supply and I was amazed it was around 130. The army was so spread out it was several screens long. It had to do with unit movement as well, as the armies would not flow violently forward unless there was some degree of freedom. In briodwar people realized that clumping units was imba as fk, and that's why muta stacking was so popular. You could not stack, or place very closely, ground units. Deathballimg is a natural state that will occur in sc2 because of clumping units on the pathfinding algorithm, where they are actually getting closer as you move the armies. This is the problem, this is what should be changed. Imo units should have a "comfort area" in addition to a collision area. This comfort area is basically the amount of spacing a unit wants to have upon arrival to a destination. Units would separate once they have arrived, as well as separate while on the move. Spamming move would squeeze them up to the collision area, but once idle, units would try to push each other again to their comfort zones. This would help by not restricting the pathfinding per se debut adding a simple ai behavior on top of the current system. I think this should be played with, and maybe mix it up with unit sizes.
PD: writing from phone, excuse grammar!
The clumping is the result of trying to stop this sort of crap from happening.
You apparently didnt watch the video, because "fixing worker pathing" does not equate to "clumping up fighting units" and 90% of the video was about workers with less than perfect pathing. No one denies that this is "funny" at best and "bad" at a normal judgement level, but the clumped units are terrible and there can be a middle ground between the two options with taking the best of each. A lot of the pathing issues were most likely the result of mineral patches and buildings being implemented badly in combination with the simpler pathing system.
Personally I wouldnt think BW is as terrible as the "tight clumps of units crap" which SC2 has, because you can do something against many of the issues shown in the video (like smarter building placement next game) AND they looked like randomly (=NOT always) happening accidents, but you cant do anything to prevent your units from clumping up ALWAYS in SC2. Personally I would choose the "occasional nuisance" over the "permanent nuisance" all the time.
Clumping is a design choice in SC2 and it is a terrible choice ... kinda like "bad sequels for movies" which think that bigger explosions and more deaths equal a better film with more revenue. That is a false logic most of the time and it also applies to SC2 ...
On November 17 2012 08:18 iPAndi wrote: Deathballs is not a "playstyle", its when you can make an giant army that will move around in a small space. Sc2 makes it so that since units naturally get too close to each other, and as they move they get even closer, to render this very possible. The other day I tuned into a broodwwar stream, and i saw sooo much units, then looked at supply and I was amazed it was around 130. The army was so spread out it was several screens long. It had to do with unit movement as well, as the armies would not flow violently forward unless there was some degree of freedom. In briodwar people realized that clumping units was imba as fk, and that's why muta stacking was so popular. You could not stack, or place very closely, ground units. Deathballimg is a natural state that will occur in sc2 because of clumping units on the pathfinding algorithm, where they are actually getting closer as you move the armies. This is the problem, this is what should be changed. Imo units should have a "comfort area" in addition to a collision area. This comfort area is basically the amount of spacing a unit wants to have upon arrival to a destination. Units would separate once they have arrived, as well as separate while on the move. Spamming move would squeeze them up to the collision area, but once idle, units would try to push each other again to their comfort zones. This would help by not restricting the pathfinding per se debut adding a simple ai behavior on top of the current system. I think this should be played with, and maybe mix it up with unit sizes.
PD: writing from phone, excuse grammar!
The clumping is the result of trying to stop this sort of crap from happening.
You apparently didnt watch the video, because "fixing worker pathing" does not equate to "clumping up fighting units" and 90% of the video was about workers with less than perfect pathing. No one denies that this is "funny" at best and "bad" at a normal judgement level, but the clumped units are terrible and there can be a middle ground between the two options with taking the best of each. A lot of the pathing issues were most likely the result of mineral patches and buildings being implemented badly in combination with the simpler pathing system.
Personally I wouldnt think BW is as terrible as the "tight clumps of units crap" which SC2 has, because you can do something against many of the issues shown in the video (like smarter building placement next game) AND they looked like randomly (=NOT always) happening accidents, but you cant do anything to prevent your units from clumping up ALWAYS in SC2. Personally I would choose the "occasional nuisance" over the "permanent nuisance" all the time.
Clumping is a design choice in SC2 and it is a terrible choice ... kinda like "bad sequels for movies" which think that bigger explosions and more deaths equal a better film with more revenue. That is a false logic most of the time and it also applies to SC2 ...
Less is more!
Wow! That's really funny video. I however agree that patching can be fixed without adding clumping. Have a look at WC3 for example
On November 17 2012 08:18 iPAndi wrote: Deathballs is not a "playstyle", its when you can make an giant army that will move around in a small space. Sc2 makes it so that since units naturally get too close to each other, and as they move they get even closer, to render this very possible. The other day I tuned into a broodwwar stream, and i saw sooo much units, then looked at supply and I was amazed it was around 130. The army was so spread out it was several screens long. It had to do with unit movement as well, as the armies would not flow violently forward unless there was some degree of freedom. In briodwar people realized that clumping units was imba as fk, and that's why muta stacking was so popular. You could not stack, or place very closely, ground units. Deathballimg is a natural state that will occur in sc2 because of clumping units on the pathfinding algorithm, where they are actually getting closer as you move the armies. This is the problem, this is what should be changed. Imo units should have a "comfort area" in addition to a collision area. This comfort area is basically the amount of spacing a unit wants to have upon arrival to a destination. Units would separate once they have arrived, as well as separate while on the move. Spamming move would squeeze them up to the collision area, but once idle, units would try to push each other again to their comfort zones. This would help by not restricting the pathfinding per se debut adding a simple ai behavior on top of the current system. I think this should be played with, and maybe mix it up with unit sizes.
PD: writing from phone, excuse grammar!
The clumping is the result of trying to stop this sort of crap from happening.
Clumping is a design choice in SC2 and it is a terrible choice ... kinda like "bad sequels for movies" which think that bigger explosions and more deaths equal a better film with more revenue. That is a false logic most of the time and it also applies to SC2 ...
On November 17 2012 07:52 []Phase[] wrote: Well they pretty much destroyed positional play for a big part by removing the lurker, dark swarm and the reaver. The lurker, might I add, is one of the most original, unique and interesting unit ive ever seen in an RTS. I understand they dont want sc2 to be brood war, but why out of all units did they have to remove the units that gave bigger advantages to people who used a lot of positional play. If they had removed it and replaced it with something similar, I would have been glad. But removing it and not giving anything in its place is a damn shame. The changed highground mechanic partially touches this problem aswell. As long as sc2 becomes more entertaining to watch, ill be glad. Starting with a 'fix' for the deathball would be a nice start imo. Thanks for the thread, its nice to see a lot of ideas gathered here.
Blizzard said they want to remove positional play.
When did they say it by the way?
My opinion is that diverse game-play with multiple possible choices is better. I didn't like purely positional TvT in BW, and I really enjoy TvT in SC2. The problem is that TvT is IMHO the only really good match-up in SC2 at the moment. Most other match-ups include too much death-balling and desperately need more game-play diversity.
On November 17 2012 07:52 []Phase[] wrote: Well they pretty much destroyed positional play for a big part by removing the lurker, dark swarm and the reaver. The lurker, might I add, is one of the most original, unique and interesting unit ive ever seen in an RTS. I understand they dont want sc2 to be brood war, but why out of all units did they have to remove the units that gave bigger advantages to people who used a lot of positional play. If they had removed it and replaced it with something similar, I would have been glad. But removing it and not giving anything in its place is a damn shame. The changed highground mechanic partially touches this problem aswell. As long as sc2 becomes more entertaining to watch, ill be glad. Starting with a 'fix' for the deathball would be a nice start imo. Thanks for the thread, its nice to see a lot of ideas gathered here.
Blizzard said they want to remove positional play.
When did they say it by the way?
My opinion is that diverse game-play with multiple possible choices is better. I didn't like purely positional TvT in BW, and I really enjoy TvT in SC2. The problem is that TvT is IMHO the only really good match-up in SC2 at the moment. Most other match-ups include too much death-balling and desperately need more game-play diversity.
On November 17 2012 07:52 []Phase[] wrote: Well they pretty much destroyed positional play for a big part by removing the lurker, dark swarm and the reaver. The lurker, might I add, is one of the most original, unique and interesting unit ive ever seen in an RTS. I understand they dont want sc2 to be brood war, but why out of all units did they have to remove the units that gave bigger advantages to people who used a lot of positional play. If they had removed it and replaced it with something similar, I would have been glad. But removing it and not giving anything in its place is a damn shame. The changed highground mechanic partially touches this problem aswell. As long as sc2 becomes more entertaining to watch, ill be glad. Starting with a 'fix' for the deathball would be a nice start imo. Thanks for the thread, its nice to see a lot of ideas gathered here.
Blizzard said they want to remove positional play.
When did they say it by the way?
My opinion is that diverse game-play with multiple possible choices is better. I didn't like purely positional TvT in BW, and I really enjoy TvT in SC2. The problem is that TvT is IMHO the only really good match-up in SC2 at the moment. Most other match-ups include too much death-balling and desperately need more game-play diversity.
Well, they mentioned specifically that they wanted warhounds to be stronger than siege tanks on wide-open ground or with flanks, but they still wanted tanks to be stronger than warhounds in chokes. I am fine with such design. Anyway they ended up scraping warhounds to reduce death-balling.
I am starting to think that Terran is actually looking really good in SC2:HoTS regarding death-balling. What is really lacking is either viability for mech in TvP or strong options for Protoss to play without death-balls. Zerg endgame can also be improved somewhat further.
I think the question isn't "which of these will work" - because any one of these solutions could in fact break up death balls - the question is which is best for gameplay and spectating? Screen filling aoe, larger armies, improved aoe ai, etc do not really cut it in this regard. Positional units and bwesque troop movement are far and away the best suggestions because they actually make the game look and feel more exciting and tactical. Less clumpy armies make for better spectating, and longer battles. Better positional control units will make for more spread out, small scale engagements as players vie for key positions on the map using only chunks of their army. This already exists in sc2, but not nearly to the degree it existed in sc1, which was a more tactical and positional game in general.
Maybe huge aoe units or larger, low supply armies could achieve this as well but I think we all know how inelegant, clunky and boring-to-watch a solution that would be. Give me my hastily constructed, strategically placed minefields and slow moving, glass cannon reavers that are helpless without support and a shuttle. Give me my 2 lurkers under a swarm zoning out a much larger Terran force while the zerg main army cuts towards a now defenseless expo.
Best idea would be to have what BW had - reasons to not want to clump up. PvZ - Zerg wants to dance hydralisks away with micro because of high templar storm being really fucking strong. PvT - Terran tanks suck when they are clumped, they fire on the same unit resulting in overkill and leaves them open to their minimum range of fire being exploited. Also, mines would kill clumped units very quickly. PvP - Reaver. TvZ - Dark swarm on your clumped units = gg. TvT - Siege tanks - never a death ball scenario. ZvZ - Nature of the matchup never really allowed for a deathball unless you count a flock of mutalisks.
On November 23 2012 23:23 Salv wrote: Best idea would be to have what BW had - reasons to not want to clump up. PvZ - Zerg wants to dance hydralisks away with micro because of high templar storm being really fucking strong. PvT - Terran tanks suck when they are clumped, they fire on the same unit resulting in overkill and leaves them open to their minimum range of fire being exploited. Also, mines would kill clumped units very quickly. PvP - Reaver. TvZ - Dark swarm on your clumped units = gg. TvT - Siege tanks - never a death ball scenario. ZvZ - Nature of the matchup never really allowed for a deathball unless you count a flock of mutalisks.
I guess this is quite true. Aside from tank overkill and minimum range all these examples are simply strong AOE. I wonder why are so many people opposed to strong AOE in this thread...
I am trying to figure out what unit or composition of units allows Protoss to play positionally? Terran have tanks and now mines, Zerg now have swarm hosts. What do Protoss have that allow them to spread units across the map while still being able to hold position when somewhat outnumbered at that position? What am I missing?
Realistically neither tanks nor swarm hosts are strong enough to be spread. They become exponentially stronger when used in increasingly large groups, but are not individually powerful enough to be efficient alone or in small groups. So protoss is not alone in lacking strong positional units.
On November 28 2012 06:02 ledarsi wrote: Realistically neither tanks nor swarm hosts are strong enough to be spread. They become exponentially stronger when used in increasingly large groups, but are not individually powerful enough to be efficient alone or in small groups. So protoss is not alone in lacking strong positional units.
I can remember one TvP where the Terran built a WIIIIIIIDDDEEE and DEEEP siege ring around the Protoss base and it took a while for the Protoss to nibble at this. Eventually the Protoss won through a clever use of the Arbiter and Recall into the Terran base.
The point is that the Protoss could not really break out of the contain because his units didnt move in the tight clumped form they do in SC2. Blink and that perfectly tight movement AND unlimited unit selection make sure that spread out siege tanks are inefficient, BUT that was something which could be done in BW. So unless there are several changes to the movement mechanic (including Blink) and the unit selection you are totally right in that tanks in small groups will never be efficient enough.
Stronger AoE damage, with maybe a tad more fragility, and less mobility, mixed with more expansions that are of lower value. You want a situation where delaying or sacrificing an expansion isn't as big of a deal, so it makes sense to kill and establish multiple expansions at a time. At the same time, you can't bring your slow AoE units with you to fight off every front, but use them to control critical paths of attack and dissuade a full on assault.
Well I have an idea. Since we haven’t been seeing lately many burrowed banelings maybe damage and splash distance of banelings while they are burrowed should be increased? It will help against clumped up marines, hydras and it will not be easy to perform since it requires a lot of skills (burrow in right place, have excellent map awareness, hit x just in time). It would be strong AoE and positional unit with speed 0 and zero effectiveness in attack so it wouldn’t be overpowered.
And the most important thing is that spectators and commentators really like to watch when burrowed banelings explode under marines (imho it’s almost as exciting like reavers).
On November 28 2012 20:03 aksfjh wrote: Stronger AoE damage, with maybe a tad more fragility, and less mobility, mixed with more expansions that are of lower value. You want a situation where delaying or sacrificing an expansion isn't as big of a deal, so it makes sense to kill and establish multiple expansions at a time. At the same time, you can't bring your slow AoE units with you to fight off every front, but use them to control critical paths of attack and dissuade a full on assault.
I agree.
By the way do you guys think that just more lower value expansions with long and narrow chokes would help? (long and narrow chokes would allow smaller forces positioned correctly to hold larger deathballs). It can be implemented purely by new maps.
Ignoring pathing, aoe and collision radius for a moment.. I'd like to consider how positional units might break up the deathball. Blizzard have said that the two new positional units they created, mine and host, will be buffed. I feel that if designed correctly the mine (mine is fine early imo but should get an upgrade mid/late game) and tank together could be great positional units for Terran. Swarm hosts, if buffed correctly too, could become the positional units they were intended to be (I feel locusts should have more HP but lower attack damage and last longer on creep but be slower).
Now what about Protoss? There doesn't even seem to be any intention of giving Protoss a positional unit T_T. Maybe blizzard like the Protoss deathball!? I for one find it terrible for the game... In terms of mobility, I think the colossus should be slower, unattackable by air, and have a vertical attack path such as described in "The Collosus:..." thread (buffs and nerfs..). This would make it more of a positional unit rather than a deathball one (Cannot keep up with the deathball).
Another option I have thought of for protoss which could either be used alongside or separately from the colossus change above is a change to the sentry's Gaurdian Shield ability described below.
Gaurdian Shield changes: 1. Shield range reduced to 3 2. Shield is now a channelled ability and can be cast up to a range of 2.5 (Therefore sentry is always within Shield) 3. The shield does one of 2 things(reduces damage by more than 2 (4 maybe!?)/increases shields by a certain percentage (20% maybe!?). 4. There is a delay of 2 sec to start-up the shield and also a 2 sec delay for switching it off. 5. All units within the shield have their collision radii increased by 10-20%.
OK, sounds a little crazy maybe, but let me explain my reasoning. If the shield is a channelled ability which has a delay to turn on and off, it would not be great for using with the deathball as it would be highly immobile. It also increases the size of units within the shield and would therefore lower DPS density. However, it could be used defensively/positionally with smaller armies on hold position as it is stronger than before and would greatly increase survivability. The Protoss army could then be spread out accross the map at strategic positions under multiple guardian shields. It would make it a very Protessy kind of positioning technique as its positional strength would come from survivability rather than high DPS/range/free units.
Any thoughts?
The reason imo that blizzard do not want to have high AOE damage, less clumpy unit pathing and more variable unit mobility is that it would make the game way to hectic for the low level leagues. I know it would make the game better to watch and play for top level players and pros, but lower league players would find it very difficult to deal with. All the leagues are important to blizzard if they want to make a lot of money, which I'm sure is what they want.
I think ideas like changing maps to have long and narrow chokes that would not affect lower leagues are the better ideas for anti-deathball SC2. Also other bases should probably not be as near to your main as they currently are, it is too easy to defending 3/4/5 bases with 1 deathball.
I really wouldn't want to be part of Blizzard right now, they have to try and make as many people happy as they can by adding cool new units that are balanced and fix all of WOLs problems. They also have to try and make positional play viable for high level players while keeping the game relatively easy for noobs. They are like the politician of the country 'SC2'; we think they should do better a job and make us all happy, while they sit their trying to figure out how the hell they can make anyone happy. I do not want to be any kind of politician... I'm happy giving random ideas, and discussing other peoples ideas and thoughts while waiting for the next balance update :D.
On November 29 2012 16:17 winsonsonho wrote: Another option I have thought of for protoss which could either be used alongside or separately from the colossus change above is a change to the sentry's Gaurdian Shield ability described below.
Gaurdian Shield changes: 1. Shield range reduced to 3 2. Shield is now a channelled ability and can be cast up to a range of 2.5 (Therefore sentry is always within Shield) 3. The shield does one of 2 things(reduces damage by more than 2 (4 maybe!?)/increases shields by a certain percentage (20% maybe!?). 4. There is a delay of 2 sec to start-up the shield and also a 2 sec delay for switching it off. 5. All units within the shield have their collision radii increased by 10-20%.
OK, sounds a little crazy maybe, but let me explain my reasoning. If the shield is a channelled ability which has a delay to turn on and off, it would not be great for using with the deathball as it would be highly immobile. It also increases the size of units within the shield and would therefore lower DPS density. However, it could be used defensively/positionally with smaller armies on hold position as it is stronger than before and would greatly increase survivability. The Protoss army could then be spread out accross the map at strategic positions under multiple guardian shields. It would make it a very Protessy kind of positioning technique as its positional strength would come from survivability rather than high DPS/range/free units.
Any thoughts?
I kinda like the idea, but instead of buffing the shield by a percentage you could have the Guardian Shield give some form of shield recharging ... even in combat. The immobile channeling nature is a great idea to keep the mobile Colossus while giving Protoss a reason to try and fight at some spot. I feel that it will be more useful for offense than defense though (except for base defense at the choke).
On November 29 2012 16:17 winsonsonho wrote: The reason imo that blizzard do not want to have high AOE damage, less clumpy unit pathing and more variable unit mobility is that it would make the game way to hectic for the low level leagues. I know it would make the game better to watch and play for top level players and pros, but lower league players would find it very difficult to deal with. All the leagues are important to blizzard if they want to make a lot of money, which I'm sure is what they want.
Making the game less hectic for lower league players involves one big thing: FEWER units ... at one spot AND on the battlefield itself. It would be kinda silly to still have the super-boosted production while force-spreading the units. This would mean getting rid of ...
Warp Gate - something which got "nerfed" for lower levels already -,
Chronoboost - which is the second "soft production boost" for Protoss -,
Inject Larva - which lower levels probably have a hard time to keep up with later on -,
the Reactor - which will make mech kinda more viable since the slow Siege Tank production isnt overshadowed by the speed production for everything else - and finally
the MULE - which people have complained about for some time AND which is the reason why we dont have any gold minerals on maps anymore.
If your units are spread out more AND you can only have 12 in one group you simply dont need that high of a production anymore to fight your battles ... as Broodwar showed. Its still going to be easier than Broodwar to manage since multiple-building-selection can be kept, but cutting those things out will also have eliminated all the economic boosts, so production cant be that high anyways.
Less dense units on the battlefield also SLOW DOWN the "rate of death", so it will become less hectic and not more as you claim.
EPT
