also, magic boxing from bw. that was good stuff.
Modified Movement Test - Page 25
Forum Index > SC2 General |
There will obviously be balance shifts when gameplay values are changed. Nobody is claiming otherwise. This thread is about the effect these changes have on the clarity and spectator-friendliness of SC2. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
also, magic boxing from bw. that was good stuff. | ||
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On July 05 2012 04:42 Zorgaz wrote: I just uploaded a map where i did the same thing as OP on the EU server. It's name is MM Cloud Kingdom! Try it out cool thanks! I put it in the OP | ||
Cortza
South Africa328 Posts
| ||
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On July 04 2012 07:38 LgNKami wrote: well mutas and broodlord thing only happens to pretty poor players generally I'd say. Infestor problem is rather rare I find.your banelings wont clump and die to 2 siege tank shots your mutas wont get fucked by thors your infestors wont clump and become useless after being emp'd your 10 broodlords wont die to 3 archons in less than 5 seconds. the only benefits for terran the i see is: less storm dodging less splitting for tanks in tvt less splitting for banelings Overall I'd say it's better for the terran in TvZ because sure while banelings may not take as much hits, they'd be so inefficient against good players that they'd be useless and a waste of money. Not the case for siege tanks. Banelings are melee units and will clump up from attack-moving as well. Terran units are all ranged and can usually stay relatively spread out quite well and remain effective. Unit's like roaches banelings and zerglings will not only tend to clump naturally, but will need to clump a bit in order to do good damage. | ||
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
I've played every RTS Blizzard has done since Warcraft Orc v Humans... been in tons of beta tests... and althought I'm an average player... I've watched this stuff forever. This would be really good for the game. This is amazing to look at. Please take a good look at this, Blizzard. Figuring how this would work with units passing each other and going up ramps might be tough to work out... but I really think it would be worth it. (AOE damage would need to be buffed etc... it would change the game entirely.) | ||
Darneck
Sweden1394 Posts
On July 05 2012 05:53 Xapti wrote: well mutas and broodlord thing only happens to pretty poor players generally I'd say. Infestor problem is rather rare I find. that's still 3 changes. I'd also say it will help against colossus and fungal too (in fact very strong vs fungal) Overall I'd say it's better for the terran in TvZ because sure while banelings may not take as much hits, they'd be so inefficient against good players that they'd be useless and a waste of money. Not the case for siege tanks. Banelings are melee units and will clump up from attack-moving as well. Terran units are all ranged and can usually stay relatively spread out quite well and remain effective. Unit's like roaches banelings and zerglings will not only tend to clump naturally, but will need to clump a bit in order to do good damage. Banelings wouldn't be a waste of resources as they would recieve an AOE radius buff too and how you can say that banelings and zerglings need to clump to do good damage is stupid, how would clumping ever be beneficial for a melee unit? It reduces the damage output as there would be more units doing nothing. And if you spread zerglings with this and attack against spread marines they won't clump naturally as they will still spread too and go towards the closest marines which would be all along the "wall" of marines if you attack with your zerglings spread | ||
Rkynick
85 Posts
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. I'd like to reiterate that the only thing this does is make it easier to spread out and keep units spread out. In the end, I don't think it would affect gameplay that much, at least not on the higher levels (where players spread out their units already). So for people who say it'd break the deathball up, I really don't think so. It may or may not be a better movement system, but the game with or without it is basically the same. Breaking up the deathball is about engagement efficiency, as I see it. This would make deathballs slightly stronger, as they'd engage in a slightly more efficient manner (which pros already make them engage in). | ||
DaveVAH
Canada162 Posts
| ||
haitike
Spain2687 Posts
| ||
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
I extremely support blizzard looking into implementing this, and really hope they take a serious look at the positives and negatives of this instead of just going with a blanket deny because it's a change from what the game is currently. The earliest we'll see it will be legacy of the void, unless we can convince some tournies to do some expo games on these maps to showcase it. edit: I feel the need to re-itterate, gameplay changes aside, this makes for a MUCH more enjoyable watching experience, and should be considered simply on that alone by the bigger tournies. While they won't just swap to it, some pressure from people like MLG/GSL/IEM would have blizzard look into it a lot more seriously. | ||
Zahir
United States947 Posts
Unfortunately, i'm not sure whether it is feasible to change it back at this late date. | ||
Darneck
Sweden1394 Posts
On July 05 2012 06:58 Rkynick wrote: I'd like to reiterate that the only thing this does is make it easier to spread out and keep units spread out. In the end, I don't think it would affect gameplay that much, at least not on the higher levels (where players spread out their units already). So for people who say it'd break the deathball up, I really don't think so. It may or may not be a better movement system, but the game with or without it is basically the same. Breaking up the deathball is about engagement efficiency, as I see it. This would make deathballs slightly stronger, as they'd engage in a slightly more efficient manner (which pros already make them engage in). With an AOE radius buff it would break them up/discourage them and buffing AOE would be possible if it was possible to stay more spread and would punish not staying spread more. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 05 2012 07:19 Darneck wrote: With an AOE radius buff it would break them up/discourage them and buffing AOE would be possible if it was possible to stay more spread and would punish not staying spread more. its true that aoe was stronger in bw. *cough storm cough* | ||
nixi
Sweden39 Posts
The good thing about the example game was that it shows how the game is pretty much unchanged til you start manually splitting up your army. Splitting will still be something you need to do often I think. | ||
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
Ksquared
United States1748 Posts
| ||
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
| ||
gawk
Germany310 Posts
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind). | ||
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote: This looks way better than the normal pathing. I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU: MMAntigaShipyard MMCondemnedRidge MMEntombedValley MMKorhalCompound MMMetropolis MMOhana MMTaldarim MMShakurasPlateau I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind). Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match. Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it. | ||
larse
1611 Posts
On July 05 2012 11:08 pzea469 wrote: Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match. Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it. I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead. And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly. | ||
| ||