EPT[A] Starbow - Page 533
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
As i said before, splitting marines is just as mindless, do you really think innovation sits there and asks himself: "hm should i split these two marines left or right?" It is all about experience, if you have to think about something more than a second you probably are doing it wrong (in 98% of all cases) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
On March 11 2014 04:03 And G wrote: Split-second judgment is still different from mindless. If you subconsciously calculate the best way for your marines to split, that isn't mindless. It's in fact a skill that is quite impressive, since it requires a lot of experience, as you rightly pointed out. Selecting workers each time they're built, however, is mindless in every sense of the word. Automining and smartcast aren't the same thing at all. Really you keep bringing up sending workers to mine when its completely besides the current conversation. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
So what? If i want to storm i need to place them in the best way possible too. The difference is that with smartcast anybody can do it, and not only can he place the storms well (as long as he can move a mouse and click), he can do it really fast. The decision has nothing to do with the execution here. We could have a "split button" for marines aswell. Would it then be impressive if somebody selects half his marines, clicks to the right and "split", the other half to the left and "split". You also would need to "decide" what the best direction is, but would people think it is amazing? Just to come back to it with a last sentence: if you have to send your workers to mine, you have to "decide" when to do it. When is time to do the macro work, will you do it during a crucial engagement? Or do you think it is fine and you are able to macro now? it isn't mindless per se, you guys just don't like it, that is all. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Also, marine splitting isn't trivial. Sending workers to mine is trivial (and people were lamenting automining in Starbow). Deciding when to do trivial tasks because you don't have the mechanical ability to do all trivial tasks at once is not an interesting decision. The question regarding automated marine splitting is interesting. There is a fundamental problem here, which is that marines aren't just "split", they're also moved in a certain direction (away from the banelings). I know this can be automated very well. The question is, what kind of effects would this have? First of all, once everyone can do gosu marine splits (and banelings have been buffed accordingly) the main deciding factor would then be the terrain. This might make for more interesting games, but quite frankly I believe that StarCraft is currently lacking the depth (in terms of maneuvering and positioning) to make this entertaining to watch. I would not object to a more basic form of this though, where you have a button for your marines (or any unit) to assume some sort of "formation" where they just spread out a bit in place, so it would be a decision between concentrated firepower and vulnerability against splash damage. The main problem with this is that you'd have to design any splash unit (or really any unit) around it. Maybe for SC3? I don't really think we should implement actual formations for groups of units, but some sort of binary "spread out" vs "clumped together" setting might be interesting. Those spread out formations would also make engagements larger (in terms of space, not number of units) so it would further discourage deathballs. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
With that it makes landing masses of storms easier and other spells too but the spells in themselves are badly designed. With only a few things to micro in battle for protoss, landing storms doesnt require rly good aim so why not make it more deadly but add a casting time or a delay and a mark to show where it lands. The intention of the one storming and the other would play a greater role. The spells in BW were simple because controlling an army was hard and annoying. Now instead of making spells more annoying to use with smart cast perhaps it would be better to change them dramatically. To me skill shots, casting time or delay, different areas of effect, more dmg, higher mana cost are the keys to do that. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 11 2014 07:17 Acertos wrote: Smart casting is less counter intuitive than having to select your hts one by one. With that it makes landing masses of storms easier and other spells too but the spells in themselves are badly designed. With only a few things to micro in battle for protoss, landing storms doesnt require rly good aim so why not make it more deadly but add a casting time or a delay and a mark to show where it lands. The intention of the one storming and the other would play a greater role. The spells in BW were simple because controlling an army was hard and annoying. Now instead of making spells more annoying to use with smart cast perhaps it would be better to change them dramatically. To me skill shots, casting time or delay, different areas of effect, more dmg, higher mana cost are the keys to do that. Fungal has a projectile, and while yes, being much better now compared to when it was not, still is not impressive (although still arguably hard to dodge). Problem is that you make fungal even easier to dodge (but more deadly) and you just get the stupid results of "wow, that's really extreme, and dumb." If there was no smartcasting, being able to land three fungals simultaneously while also trying to micro vs other units would be a lot more impressive. As it standards right now, you can just blanket fungals to hit their army, but the fungals itself aren't impressive even remotely. Which is why everyone makes fun of Artosis when he yells "AMAZING FUNGALS." | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
I don't want to do away with footwork, but I would like to get rid of the mud. Yes, this requires differently designed weapons. Yes, footwork becomes less important. Yes, fights will look different. But if done right, I believe this will turn out to be more entertaining to play as well as to watch. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
HeyHoStarbow
South Africa12 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On March 11 2014 22:28 And G wrote: Does anyone here do swordplay? Doesn't really matter whether it's kendo, modern fencing, or medieval schools; one of the most important aspects is always footwork. In terms of swordplay, BW is basically a duel of two swordsmen standing in deep mud, wielding heavy and slow greatswords with varying degrees of clumsiness. They stagger all the time, and it's very impressive when someone slips only very rarely. It takes a lot of skills to stay on your feet and thus the best fencers have all mastered the art of fighting in the mud. I don't want to do away with footwork, but I would like to get rid of the mud. Yes, this requires differently designed weapons. Yes, footwork becomes less important. Yes, fights will look different. But if done right, I believe this will turn out to be more entertaining to play as well as to watch. agree | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
http://strawpoll.me/1301223 | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Try this one: http://strawpoll.me/1301301 | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On March 12 2014 22:26 And G wrote: That's a stupid poll, it doesn't differentiate between spells that are designed for smartcasting and spells that aren't, completely ignoring any discussion we had on that topic on the last 3 pages. Try this one: http://strawpoll.me/1301301 spell design doesn't matter, even if you think it would. Except you want to make the most microintensive spells ever, but then you are in the wrong genre (macro) | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Going by the poll, people currently seem to prefer spells designed for smartcasting (8 vs 6). But that's obviously not statistically significant. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: spell design doesn't matter, even if you think it would. Except you want to make the most microintensive spells ever, but then you are in the wrong genre (macro) Dunno why its the wrong game. The macro is already much easier than broodwar - I dont see any reason not to try adding more micro/tactic in combat overall | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:34 And G wrote: I know that's what you think, but we don't need a poll to find out your opinion, do we? Going by the poll, people currently seem to prefer spells designed for smartcasting (8 vs 6). But that's obviously not statistically significant. So what did you vote? | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Like, obviously...? | ||
| ||
