| CanucksJC Canada. May 17 2011 09:55. Posts 1216 | Profile Blog # |
This is a translation from a thread posted on PlayXP.
Sorry for the messy translation lol :D
[edit] I'm adding the link to the petition Zapdos_Smithh started to get this change implemented in the future:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dynamicmovementsc2/
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9ecOm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bUPe7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e8R18.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/flehG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J0iBR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M28xB.jpg)
In SCBW and W3, units move while avoiding friendly units,
but in SC2, units move while pushing their own friendly units. (when on hold position, they avoid each other)
This is where units tend to clump up, and this happens even when you move them just a couple of times.
Units also clump up in small numbers as well.
If you watch SCBW games, units don't push each other around, so the space around each unit is always changning, and this results in a dynamic movement.
If you only move with one control group, units show the same dynamic movement.
I think this is very important for e-sports.
If I had to list the advantages of removing the clumping of units:
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic.
Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units.
SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings.
The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units.
If you look at the units that do splash damage,
siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth,
most of them have been nerfed since beta.
One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps.
Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases.
One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long.
Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
If we end up getting rid of this issue, or units move more like in SCBW and W3, we probably need to tweak the balance again.
However, if balance is something that needs to be gradually fixed, this issue should be something we need to change right now.
As a SCBW and SC2 player, and an e-sports viewer, I write this to plead my case.
Source:http://www.playxp.com/sc2/forum/view.php?article_id=2766172
Last edit: 2011-05-18 08:08:48 |
| | UBC StarCraft Club is official @ UBC Vancouver campus! Your first eSport community on campus. Welcomes players of all levels at UBC. Follow us on facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=155630424470014 or IRC @ irc.rizon.net #ubcsc |  |
|
|
 HawaiianPig Canada. May 17 2011 09:57. Posts 4748 | Profile Blog # |
| This is really promising, and I've always maintained that blob on blob action is a big part of why SC2 is... the way it is, but I have trouble imagining Blizzard would implement such a massive change. |
| | Not actually Hawaiian. |  |
|
|
| snozberry United States. May 17 2011 09:57. Posts 109 | Profile # |
| it would be excellent, battles seem like a crapshoot sometimes with all the clumping |
|
|
| Koshi Belgium. May 17 2011 10:00. Posts 6757 | Profile Blog # |
Everything you state would make this game more interesting IF it pays out like you say it will. However, by changing the dynamic unit movement you will also change the game. I don't know if I like that part.
SCII is good as it is. For now.Last edit: 2011-05-17 10:00:32 |
|
|
| Tarot Canada. May 17 2011 10:00. Posts 324 | Profile # |
This change would be amazing, but its very unlikely that Blizzard would do such a thing. 
edit: Watching a 200 protoss "deathball" with half a dozen colossus move around looks so... bad...
There was a thread before:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=198840
Where the unit collision sizes were all increased. I think this is a pretty good way of 'fixing' the issue without having to revamp the pathing AI in the game. Last edit: 2011-05-17 10:18:06 |
|
|
| VGhost United States. May 17 2011 10:01. Posts 1835 | Profile Blog # |
I'm all for reducing the clumping effect (I've thought for a while that it looks unnatural), but it seems to me that it runs the risk of (re?)introducing stupid AI when moving large control groups around - blocked units will go up ramps etc.
Of course, depending on your point of view that might not be a bad this (more micro potentially?).
And even if it is a good idea for gameplay reasons, how would something like that be changed, reasonably speaking? It might be possible to introduce it in HotS but it's changing a big thing in the game - beta would have been the time to do this. |
| | "When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel |  |
|
|
| WinteRR Australia. May 17 2011 10:01. Posts 195 | Profile # |
| Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO). |
| |
|
| joshboy42 Australia. May 17 2011 10:01. Posts 115 | Profile # |
I think it would be difficult to implement this option now, because a lot of the aoe/splash damage abilities in sc2 are balanced around the fact that units generally clump (and it becomes the responsibility of the user's micro ability to keep them spread).
Micro battles like marine splitting against banelings, for instance, would become almost obsolete (and banelings themselves would be significantly weakened). It wasn't such an issue in wc3 I don't think, because of the size of the armies you would be individually controlling units anyway, but with 200/200 armies auto spreading I don't know if that would be a good thing for the game. |
| | eat this cheese without farting and you can sleep with my sister |
|
|
| gogogadgetflow United States. May 17 2011 10:01. Posts 2583 | Profile # |
| PlayXP is really stuck in the past eh? I'm not a fan of zeroing out all of the balance work blizzard has done so far in pursuit of something which may or may not improve the game, and where all the arguments come from different games. Last edit: 2011-05-17 10:02:52 |
|
|
| RinconH United States. May 17 2011 10:01. Posts 503 | Profile # |
| It's a cool idea and I'd like to see it but it would change the game dramatically imo. |
|
|
| jrkirby United States. May 17 2011 10:02. Posts 507 | Profile Blog # |
This (realistically) would never be implemented. But it's pretty damn cool. I hope someone makes a custom mod where the units behave like this.
And if someone can find a video (not just screenshots), that would be awesome. |
|
|
| archonOOid May 17 2011 10:03. Posts 1873 | Profile Blog # |
| I like this idea, aoe spells would require more skill on the other hand in the current pathing system spreading is a skill. But I prefer longer battles over spreading micro |
| |
|
| stokes17 United States. May 17 2011 10:03. Posts 1381 | Profile # |
My god those second pictures in each set look so much more natural...
But by the same token.... if in a few years pro can accomplish this on their own.... it would make it that much more impressive wouldn't it?
|
|
|
| Toastmold Canada. May 17 2011 10:07. Posts 176 | Profile # |
| Clumping is just part of the challenge of microing in SC2. Yearning for archaic unit movement seems pointless. |
| |
|
| EG.DeMoN United States. May 17 2011 10:09. Posts 386 | Profile # |
Good article. I agree with most of what it says. The increased clumping of units in SC2 really turns the game into a-moved ball vs a-moved ball. It's something that I hope blizzard is considering for HotS.
Un-clumped units make for a more exciting game from a viewer's perspective IMO. |
|
|
| johanngrunt Hong Kong. May 17 2011 10:09. Posts 1554 | Profile Blog # |
| Is there any way to force them not to clump? |
|
|
| K3Nyy United States. May 17 2011 10:10. Posts 1710 | Profile # |
On May 17 2011 10:01 WinteRR wrote:
Very good article. I agree with it. This is probably the reason why siege tanks in SC2 seem so 'strong' when in comparison to their BW counterpart do relatively little damage. I feel this would be a good change to the game (especially to the colossus IMHO).
Wait what? Siege tanks in SC2 are shit compared to SC1 tanks lol.
In SC1, every time tanks shoot, my dragoons turn to blue goo. |
| |
|
| Falcor Canada. May 17 2011 10:11. Posts 892 | Profile # |
| This is never going to happen imo. The game was balanced around "balls" so if they implemented this everything would have to change |
|
|
| nexitustl1 May 17 2011 10:11. Posts 156 | Profile # |
Micro battles like marine splitting against banelings, for instance, would become almost obsolete (and banelings themselves would be significantly weakened). It wasn't such an issue in wc3 I don't think, because of the size of the armies you would be individually controlling units anyway, but with 200/200 armies auto spreading I don't know if that would be a good thing for the game.
thats the first the that came to mind when i was thinking about this and the possibilities behind it. Changing something in the game that players should be doing themselves to better improve their chances in fights to me is a little overboard. Yes with how SC2 has been made tons of things are possible in the realm of making fights more safe for players who don't use important area of effect units. The real question is it the right thing to do, i personally don't think so in the future of sc2 i see more and more scenario's involving unit spread to be key to micro and battle engagements just like how the marine spread has been up to now. |
|
|
| Navillus United States. May 17 2011 10:12. Posts 1120 | Profile # |
1. (the most important) Unit movements become more dynamic.
Even if you hotkey them separately, those small groups will move like a clump of jelly anyways. It doesn't look natural, and your army looks smaller than it actually is.
Ok this is apparently the most important point you have but all it is is an aesthetic complaint, I'd just as soon not change a major part of the game so it looks nicer to you.
2. It's easier to tell the difference between units.
SCBW is in 2-d and it uses less colours, while SC2 is 3-d and uses a variety of colours. So it's easier to differentiate units in SCBW. You can tell this by playing SC2 in the lowest graphic settings.
The lowest graphic setting allows you to tell the difference between units and the difference between units and map tiles much more effectively.
Somewhat more legitimate complaint (mostly because there actually is one) but again just aesthetics, when it comes to players, just play on low (most pros do anyway, if you don't want to... again don't change the game to make it easier on your eyes) Perhaps when it comes to spectating this makes sense, but first I don't want to change the game for spectators, also I have no problem seeing anything, I think it looks nice.
3. You can weaken the power of splash units.
If you look at the units that do splash damage,
siege mode tanks, thor's air attack, ghost's EMP and nuclear missile, raven's HSM, colossus, high templar's storm, infestor's fungal growth,
most of them have been nerfed since beta.
One reason why they are so strong is because units always move together in clumps.
Some people will tell you to separate your units beforehand, but they clump up again when you move them around to attack.
This one's just silly, yes they've been nerfed a decent amount to balance the game this would undo all of that you're basically trying to say this would be good for balance when it would just throw everything off again.
4. The firepower decreases and the duration of battles increases.
One of the main issues with SC2 since the release was that the battles didn't last very long.
Along with complaints such as 'the maps are too narrow', 'the game time is too fast', I think this is a legit explanation as well. This is why we should change the tendency for units to clump together.
And last another basically noncomplaint, I have no problem with the length of battles or the game, have not seen a trend of complaints to that effect and also think that this would just make battles less predictable and harder to play legitimately, also I don't think that battles are the major factor in game length, if it's a macro game it will go long no matter what, if it's all one base play (the more realistic cause for short games) then long battles will add a minute or two tops.Last edit: 2011-05-17 10:12:50 |
| | "TL gives excellent advice 99% of the time. The problem is no one listens to it." -Plexa |  |
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next All |
|
Store
