Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (100 users) | |
|
| haitike Spain. July 06 2012 23:44. Posts 705 | Profile # |
Since the release of Starcraft2 there have been many attempts to fix the crucial problems in the MapMaking scene. Unit Clumping, Deathball fights, difficulty to spread the army for all the map and harass, only small parts of the maps used, hard to be creative creating new maps with different layouts, no tactical terrain adventages, low frequency expanding, base looses are to dangerous, etc.
Barrin "Breath of Gameplay" article and the 6m1g was quite popular that days. Then He evolved his ideas to FRB, but without enough testing. Other mods tried to change the unit cumpling as Modified Movement or Dynamic Movement. This mod tries to unify and improve all this work while still keeping the exact SC2 units and mechanics. If you want different solution you can test Starbow, a mix between SC2 and BW.
List of Features: - Some type of non-clumping movement ( Modified Movement, Dynamic Movement or other) - Some type of Income reduction. The ideal thing is that you need more than 3 bases to reach 200 population. We can debate in this thread the way. Probably a macro mechanic nerf too (Mule, Spawn Larva). - Adjust and Rebalance AOE and maybe some unit damage. This is a result of the above. That would need some gameplay testing from the community. - High Ground Advantage: We need to find the best type. The more logical options are Miss Chance or Damage Reduction when attacking high ground, - Maybe make both Gateway and Warpgate viable all the game? (gateway create slightly faster units and warpgate create far away) (Just an optional Idea)
Versions: Version 1.1
Published Maps (EU, NA): iSC2 Daybreak
Note: The name of the mod can change in the future to a better one. Note2: Sorry my bad bad English (third language), I will try to fix the grammar this days.Last edit: 2012-07-10 17:55:49 |
| |

|
| haitike Spain. July 06 2012 23:52. Posts 705 | Profile # |
I'm waiting to people talk about the FRB and the Income reduction changes before continue with that.
Pools
Poll: What Kind of Movement Would you prefer in this mod?Dynamic Movement (13) 72% Modified Movement Test (3) 17% Another one (explain) (2) 11% 18 total votes Your vote: What Kind of Movement Would you prefer in this mod? (Vote): Dynamic Movement (Vote): Modified Movement Test (Vote): Another one (explain)
Poll: High Ground Adventage10% Damage Reduction (2) 33% 25% Damage Reduction (2) 33% 53%Miss Chance (1) 17% >25% Damage Reduction (1) 17% <53% Miss Chance (0) 0% >53% Miss Chance (0) 0% 6 total votes Your vote: High Ground Adventage (Vote): 53%Miss Chance (Vote): <53% Miss Chance (Vote): >53% Miss Chance (Vote): 10% Damage Reduction (Vote): 25% Damage Reduction (Vote): >25% Damage Reduction
Last edit: 2012-07-10 18:01:02 |
| |
|
| TaShadan Germany. July 06 2012 23:59. Posts 692 | Profile # |
| maybe you should team up with the starbow creator kabel? |
| | Warcraft 2.5 "http://www.moddb.com/mods/warcraft-25" a fast paced Broodwar/Warcraft2 style mod for Warcraft 3 TFT (without heroes) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=264386 | |
|
|
| haitike Spain. July 07 2012 00:16. Posts 705 | Profile # |
On July 06 2012 23:59 TaShadan wrote: maybe you should team up with the starbow creator kabel?
Well, although we have some common discussions, like the Income change. I think that lot of us want a better SC2 that still continue being SC2 without change of units and such. This is intended to be competitive in the future with a possible tournament (like Barrin FRB Tournament) if the mod advances. |
| |
|
| Qwyn United States. July 07 2012 00:17. Posts 1378 | Profile Blog # |
YES! Finally someone who has the balls to do this (I'm no good with the map editor lol).
1. FRB GT (current version) is most stable and will have the most effect on the game with the least drawbacks (expanding plateau issues). I suggest you test it once or twice to get the idea. It's all about the gas, woot! (MOD type includes nerfs to macro mechanics!??!) 2. Change the collision/clumping settings a la Dynamic Movement thread. Has to be more than Modified Movement thread suggests. 3. Implement highground mechanic. I think people are brainstorming on this. 4. Begin rebalancing the game's AOE stats sliver by sliver.
Also, if this is a mod to try and improve SCII why would you keep the current shit pathing? You even suggest changes in the OP. Don't put a poll in there asking if you should, lol. This is supposed to be a combination type of deal and you can't have better AOE without better pathing.
EDIT:
You might consider seeing if you can team up with Kabel, but not to implement Starbow, only make an "Improved SCII Mod." If that is not possible, perhaps consider looking for someone else experienced with the GE to work with you? Last edit: 2012-07-07 00:28:25 |
| |

|
| haitike Spain. July 07 2012 00:40. Posts 705 | Profile # |
On July 07 2012 00:17 Qwyn wrote: YES! Finally someone who has the balls to do this (I'm no good with the map editor lol).
Im surprised that after so many debate, ideas and such nobody started this before 
1. FRB GT (current version) is most stable and will have the most effect on the game with the least drawbacks (expanding plateau issues). I suggest you test it once or twice to get the idea. It's all about the gas, woot! (MOD type includes nerfs to macro mechanics!??!)
My problem is that I cant see de FRB Mods in the European server. So maybe they are only published in NA. If instead of mods I search for maps the only maps in Europe are the old 6m1g ones. I wish Blizzard implement global servers soon. Im trying to get a NA account.
2. Change the collision/clumping settings a la Dynamic Movement thread. Has to be more than Modified Movement thread suggests.
Yes, I think the Modified Movement is "too soft", It only keep the formation some time, and only if you dont go thought chokes. But well, maybe other have different opinions. Anyway, I have implemented the Modified temporally in that moment because is easier (Only change a parameter).
3. Implement highground mechanic. I think people are brainstorming on this.
We need more brainstorming in this. In the FRB Mod there were some discussion in the first pages, but the proyect was forgotten.
This thread is interesting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335595#14 But again, it is NA published only.
4. Begin rebalancing the game's AOE stats sliver by sliver.
Yes that is the longest and harder part, that will need lot of testing.
Also, if this is a mod to try and improve SCII why would you keep the current shit pathing? You even suggest changes in the OP. Don't put a poll in there asking if you should, lol. This is supposed to be a combination type of deal and you can't have better AOE without better pathing.
You are right, fixed the pool.
|
| |

|
| TaShadan Germany. July 07 2012 00:46. Posts 692 | Profile # |
| for the highground bonus you should just add a damage reduction cause miss chance is too random |
| | Warcraft 2.5 "http://www.moddb.com/mods/warcraft-25" a fast paced Broodwar/Warcraft2 style mod for Warcraft 3 TFT (without heroes) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=264386 | |
|
|
| Qwyn United States. July 07 2012 00:54. Posts 1378 | Profile Blog # |
Yeah I dunno where Barrin went. I don't think he stopped supporting the idea. Perhaps Barrin packaged the file offline? I personally really like what Starbow has done as far as implementing older units like the lurker. But...sigh....different game whatever. (I can never give up hope that someday....someday....maybe).
KK modified movement is much easier to implement instead of the collision changes (there is a thread on here that listed a mod that did such a thing awhile back).
Interesting find on the highground advantage thread.
Yeah I really want to know what Barrin thinks/is up to with FRB. I hope he hasn't given up. I PM'd him and he still hasn't responded. |
| |
|
| Rkynick July 07 2012 05:25. Posts 75 | Profile # |
Modified movement isn't a big enough change to influence the gameplay positively.
It doesn't really change unit movement that much, it just makes them clump up a little less. The game needs to change on a much deeper level than that to break up the deathball.
See, the issue isn't that units clump, necessarily. The clumping is a symptom of the problem, and the problem is streamlined unit movement. This form of modified movement (which we've known about for a while) doesn't address the underlying issue, just clumping. Units move too easily and too smoothly. If you think about BW movement, the difference isn't that they don't clump, the difference is that they move very sharply and in a very clunky manner. They tend to get caught up on eachother. A group of units can't all move up and attack, it isn't that simple.
The key phrase is "get caught up on eachother." We need unit movement that causes units to get caught up on eachother, because that makes larger groups of units less effective. When your deathball is too stupid to move around itself to attack the enemy, then you have to do more micro to use it correctly, and even then it isn't attacking 100% efficiently. If a deathball can't attack 100% efficiently, then a smaller army can match it. If 100 units is really only as powerful as 80 in most situations, then an army of 80 can hold off the attack. Now, if you're behind in this situation, it means you can make a comeback, since the 100-unit player can't overpower your army. If you're equal in this situation, it means you can have 20 of your units go attack the enemy, and still have 80 to hold off the enemy's main army. Multi-pronged attacks become viable.
More of my thoughts on the matter, if you're interested:
On July 04 2012 15:06 Rkynick wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
Anyways, there aren't many movement options available to us in the editor, but the movement ability of units (not their formations) needs to be changed. I would suggest lowering the turn rate (stationary and otherwise) of all units to 200-250 and turning the unit flag "turn before moving" on, while also lowering the acceleration and deceleration of all units to 1-2 and setting lateral acceleration to 0.5-1. We absolutely need to find a way to make units collide with eachother instead of pushing eachother around. It's kind of a big issue. |
|

|
| Xlancer United States. July 07 2012 06:49. Posts 109 | Profile # |
[B]On July 06 2012 23:44 haitike wrote: - High Ground Advantage: We need to find the best type. The more logical options are Miss Chance or Damage Reduction when attacking high ground,
Sorry but I just can't help but find it funny how people seem to actually think that elevation has any effect on direct fire weapons accuracy or damage. Direct fire weapon's accuracy and damage is only effected by the distance to the target. |
| | “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” - Friedrich Hegel |
|
|
| HeroMystic United States. July 07 2012 10:25. Posts 894 | Profile # |
| Can anyone explain the need to modify the current high ground advantage? I never seen this as a complaint before. |
|
|
0neder United States. July 07 2012 12:35. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
Glad to see a more comprehensive thread on this. Agree with all your proposals.
i submit that the macro mechanics should go or at least be nerfed heavily. And just so the haters are aware, I was pro-macro mechanic for the last two years. They make the game too volatile - scouting means less and things are just too unstable.
I'm also working on a thread, more of a philosophical/design thread, but I will link this heavily. i also like the open-ended approach, which I think is the best when doing game design - you test, you change, you repeat, etc.Last edit: 2012-07-07 12:36:30 |
|
|
0neder United States. July 07 2012 12:44. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
On July 07 2012 05:25 Rkynick wrote:Modified movement isn't a big enough change to influence the gameplay positively. It doesn't really change unit movement that much, it just makes them clump up a little less. The game needs to change on a much deeper level than that to break up the deathball. See, the issue isn't that units clump, necessarily. The clumping is a symptom of the problem, and the problem is streamlined unit movement. This form of modified movement (which we've known about for a while) doesn't address the underlying issue, just clumping. Units move too easily and too smoothly. If you think about BW movement, the difference isn't that they don't clump, the difference is that they move very sharply and in a very clunky manner. They tend to get caught up on eachother. A group of units can't all move up and attack, it isn't that simple. The key phrase is "get caught up on eachother." We need unit movement that causes units to get caught up on eachother, because that makes larger groups of units less effective. When your deathball is too stupid to move around itself to attack the enemy, then you have to do more micro to use it correctly, and even then it isn't attacking 100% efficiently. If a deathball can't attack 100% efficiently, then a smaller army can match it. If 100 units is really only as powerful as 80 in most situations, then an army of 80 can hold off the attack. Now, if you're behind in this situation, it means you can make a comeback, since the 100-unit player can't overpower your army. If you're equal in this situation, it means you can have 20 of your units go attack the enemy, and still have 80 to hold off the enemy's main army. Multi-pronged attacks become viable.More of my thoughts on the matter, if you're interested: Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 15:06 Rkynick wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
Anyways, there aren't many movement options available to us in the editor, but the movement ability of units (not their formations) needs to be changed. I would suggest lowering the turn rate (stationary and otherwise) of all units to 200-250 and turning the unit flag "turn before moving" on, while also lowering the acceleration and deceleration of all units to 1-2 and setting lateral acceleration to 0.5-1. We absolutely need to find a way to make units collide with eachother instead of pushing eachother around. It's kind of a big issue.
You need to read the dynamic movement thread, not the modified movement thread. |
|

|
| Gyro_SC2 Canada. July 07 2012 12:56. Posts 514 | Profile # |
How can I try a game of dynamic movement ? MM was very similar to the normal version.
I would like to play 6m + dynamic movement+ hight ground avantage.Last edit: 2012-07-07 12:57:07 |
|
|
Natespank Canada. July 07 2012 13:22. Posts 448 | Profile # |
| Is anyone aware of a dyanmic movement video? The screenshots don't tell enough. |
|
|
Natespank Canada. July 07 2012 13:27. Posts 448 | Profile # |
As for income, I think 6m has advantages over FRB:
1- Fewer workers per base. This makes it cheaper to expand while rewarding a player who attempts to take a 4th base. 2- No new mineral types introduced.
I've said before that using 4 gold mineral patches instead of any number of blues would be fun. |
|
|
| haitike Spain. July 07 2012 14:49. Posts 705 | Profile # |
I will start working in that hard in 2/3 days when I have free time.
On July 07 2012 00:46 TaShadan wrote: for the highground bonus you should just add a damage reduction cause miss chance is too random
I dont know. Miss chance worked fine in BW and WC3 and it is not so random in big battles. Damage reduction could be too strong, but well, I will make some tests.
On July 07 2012 06:49 Xlancer wrote: Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 23:44 haitike wrote: - High Ground Advantage: We need to find the best type. The more logical options are Miss Chance or Damage Reduction when attacking high ground,
Sorry but I just can't help but find it funny how people seem to actually think that elevation has any effect on direct fire weapons accuracy or damage. Direct fire weapon's accuracy and damage is only effected by the distance to the target.
Everyone knows that. But this about best game mechanics, not Reality.
On July 07 2012 10:25 HeroMystic wrote: Can anyone explain the need to modify the current high ground advantage? I never seen this as a complaint before.
It is a common complain since the beta (I remember a TL Staff article in 2010 beta period addressing this problem. But it is hard to find this days.
You can meanwhile read the Barrin Article, he furthermore recommends to watch the Daily #44 from Day9 in MatchPoint, a BW map (similar to Daybreak) with huge impact of that mechanics.
On July 07 2012 12:56 Gyro_SC2 wrote: I would like to play 6m + dynamic movement+ hight ground advantage.
That is our objective (and change AOE). Im trying to contact with the High Ground Mod Creator for getting the mod, because it is not published in Europe.
On July 07 2012 12:56 Gyro_SC2 wrote: How can I try a game of dynamic movement ? MM was very similar to the normal version.
On July 07 2012 13:22 Natespank wrote: Is anyone aware of a dyanmic movement video? The screenshots don't tell enough.
The Dynamic Movement Thread is a Korean Article that explain the adventage of Dynamic movement with 4 clear points. The images in that thread are "hypothetical" and no MOD habe been created still (hard work with the actual engine).
However, Maverick, the creator of the SC2BW mod is making some testing. You can see a Youtube Video here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316¤tpage=189#3780
It looks unfinished but really nice progress.
[B]On July 07 2012 13:27 Natespank wrote: As for income, I think 6m has advantages over FRB:
1- Fewer workers per base. This makes it cheaper to expand while rewarding a player who attempts to take a 4th base. 2- No new mineral types introduced.
I've said before that using 4 gold mineral patches instead of any number of blues would be fun.
The problem with 6m was that it encouraged 1 base play at first and later added a lot of pressure expanding. But the real good thing is that it really obligates you to take 4 or 5 bases before 200 population (FRB is weaker in that).
I'm still not sure what is the optimal solution.Last edit: 2012-07-07 14:51:49 |
| |

|
Natespank Canada. July 07 2012 15:01. Posts 448 | Profile # |
The problem with 6m was that it encouraged 1 base play at first and later added a lot of pressure expanding. But the real good thing is that it really obligates you to take 4 or 5 bases before 200 population (FRB is weaker in that).
I'm still not sure what is the optimal solution.
That's the easiest thing in the world. Make the natural expansion 8m, or add a single or two gold patches to the natural. Suddenly, expanding is a big payoff. The gold patches could be the 7th and 8th patches, but could mine out very quickly- basically existing only to make the base pay off in time to keep you alive, you know?
Besides, it's not 6m that encourages 1 base play, it's the utter lack of defensive advantages. Combining 6m with highground advantages, or hell, a default tower in your main and/or your natural, would utterly stop all that nonsense.
It's really simple  |
|
|
Natespank Canada. July 07 2012 15:05. Posts 448 | Profile # |
By the way, about the 6m expansion pressure thing: as I said, if each base had 4-5 gold patches instead of 6-8 blue patches, the startup cost would drop while making players expand all over the entire map to take advantage of their 75 workers. Same income per base, but lower startup cost and a reward to spread out over like 5-6 bases.
It would change the game a lot, yeah, but imo for the best. You have to play some dawn of war 1 to appreciate how something like this can affect a game, it's beautiful. |
|
|
| Rkynick July 07 2012 17:27. Posts 75 | Profile # |
On July 07 2012 12:44 0neder wrote: Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 05:25 Rkynick wrote:Modified movement isn't a big enough change to influence the gameplay positively. It doesn't really change unit movement that much, it just makes them clump up a little less. The game needs to change on a much deeper level than that to break up the deathball. See, the issue isn't that units clump, necessarily. The clumping is a symptom of the problem, and the problem is streamlined unit movement. This form of modified movement (which we've known about for a while) doesn't address the underlying issue, just clumping. Units move too easily and too smoothly. If you think about BW movement, the difference isn't that they don't clump, the difference is that they move very sharply and in a very clunky manner. They tend to get caught up on eachother. A group of units can't all move up and attack, it isn't that simple. The key phrase is "get caught up on eachother." We need unit movement that causes units to get caught up on eachother, because that makes larger groups of units less effective. When your deathball is too stupid to move around itself to attack the enemy, then you have to do more micro to use it correctly, and even then it isn't attacking 100% efficiently. If a deathball can't attack 100% efficiently, then a smaller army can match it. If 100 units is really only as powerful as 80 in most situations, then an army of 80 can hold off the attack. Now, if you're behind in this situation, it means you can make a comeback, since the 100-unit player can't overpower your army. If you're equal in this situation, it means you can have 20 of your units go attack the enemy, and still have 80 to hold off the enemy's main army. Multi-pronged attacks become viable.More of my thoughts on the matter, if you're interested: On July 04 2012 15:06 Rkynick wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This sort of change doesn't really fix the problem, as near as I can tell.
The units still have the same efficient movement, just they are more spread out. The crux of BW design is inefficient movement. Inefficient movement means that units in crowded areas become less and less effective as the area becomes more crowded-- they're too stupid to move around eachother, which is less damage output for your army, as they cannot get in range. This means that there's more 'buffering time' before the engagement actually occurs-- units take longer to move into their positions, which increases the defender's advantage, particularly the power of splash damage and long ranged units, because these units have longer periods of time to attack without being attacked.
With this, as in regular SC2, you just move forward casually and achieve 100% damage output.
Presently, spreading out in SC2 provides a survivability bonus, but not a damage output bonus. Also, there is little time before the engagement reaches its climax and the engagement lasts very little time afterwards.
Because units engage so efficiently, you need every unit to win a fight, and every extra unit you have is extra damage output. This is why deathballs form-- adding more units to them makes them more effective at a rate that doesn't tend to decrease.
If you want to stop the deathballs, then adding more units to a group needs to become less and less effective as the group's size increases. This means a group of x size is just as effective as a group of x + 25 size at a certain point. This means the +25 player could take that 25 and use them elsewhere more effectively than keeping them with.
If you want to do that: 1) powerful splash units & other area control units. Splash units can do more with less, and do much much more damage to over-saturated groups, and thus punish over-saturation. The issue is, as with the colossus, when these units become part of the deathball, rather than destroying it. Tanks are a good example of splash units done right. Psi Storms are also a pretty good example. Splash units are not the end-all-be-all answer to deathballs, however.
2) Inefficient movement mechanics. Units need to be god-awful at getting around eachother, and at moving in general. Things should break down more and more as more and more units are added. Good players can use their units more effectively, allowing them to use larger-sized groups to their full potential, so this both rewards good play and discourages deathballing after a certain 'breakdown' point.
3) essentially, units need to be able to stall. So, engagements should last longer. If a group of units can stall a larger group of units effectively, then a player can afford to break off units from the main group and form smaller groups for multipronged attacks and harassment. Stalling means you can have afford to have troops further and further away from your main forces or bases, as stalling gives you more time to gather your armies in one place, more time to react. Therefore, stalling is a major part of breaking up the deathball.
4) Counters. Counters are another situation where one can do more with less, as being prepared with the right kind of units to combat the enemy's army can give a player more breathing room because they will make more efficient trades. However, hard-counters should be avoided, and most units should be soft-counters. Gameplay which is reliant on counters encourages deathball behavior, as the vulnerable units will need to be protected (and thus surrounded). This is why, for example, we don't see colossus used for harassment. Too many hard counters. Counters, then, should be more along the lines of 'this is what counter unit is good at' rather than 'countered unit is too powerful, so let's give it a vulnerability.' If that makes any sense. Counters are tricky business, the other options are much surer bets.
5) More with less. I keep saying this, but this is the basis of my design hypothesis. If players can do the same with less, then they have excess units which would be put to better use elsewhere. Elsewhere = outside of the deathball. Right now SC2 does have an 'excess unit' point, but it's at around 300 army supply. We need to bring this point down. Way down.
You can look at many parts of the SC2 game design and see features which contribute to these. However, they are simply not enough. When bigger is always better and you can't stall for time, the game is, most of the time, a race to simply be bigger.
So that's all my cents. All of them. I hope you appreciate them. Don't spend them all in one place.
I forgot one: - Control group limits will not solve anything. At all. They just artificially impose a weight on the power of large armies by making the player work harder to use them-- not to position them, or anything strategic and relevant like that, just simply to use them. The power of large armies should be limited by game mechanics, not terrible interface design. Look at Total Annihilation, for instance. It managed to limit the power of large armies (largely through the mechanics I've described above) and players could select an unlimited number of units at once. I believe BW did a lot of things right, but the control group limit really did not contribute to that at all, in my mind.
Anyways, there aren't many movement options available to us in the editor, but the movement ability of units (not their formations) needs to be changed. I would suggest lowering the turn rate (stationary and otherwise) of all units to 200-250 and turning the unit flag "turn before moving" on, while also lowering the acceleration and deceleration of all units to 1-2 and setting lateral acceleration to 0.5-1. We absolutely need to find a way to make units collide with eachother instead of pushing eachother around. It's kind of a big issue.
You need to read the dynamic movement thread, not the modified movement thread.
All I've been able to gather from the dynamic movement thread is that they have some cryptic method of changing the movement system which is never specified.
I'm assuming it's actually the same thing as the modified movement, so my point stands. Or they have no system at all, in which case it's not worth mentioning. It may be trying to do what I'm talking about, but if it hasn't then it isn't much use to us. Blizzard will never give us what we need, so we need to find our own way to do it.
In any case I find it silly that you're all voting for something which we know nothing about.
EDIT: after reading more, I now believe that it does exist, but is exactly the same as modified movement. Though I guess if I read another ten pages it'll be completely different.
EDIT2: Yeah it's basically the same. I don't understand why you would direct me to it. So, my point is that my point still stands. This sort of change isn't going to create the kind of change you want in the game.
Last edit: 2012-07-07 17:38:11 |
|

|
| 1 2 Next All | | |
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...

|