Why is the attack prioritization of the units never discussed in the balance discussions?
i think the blizz work is great by the way, so this is analysis, not whining by any means :^)
As i see it, units are ordered in a hierarchy set by the importance of the units (some might argue that it is purely an "A move" attack consideration, but it is clear that in a 200 200 battle, most of the targeting choices are made automatically).
The workers take highest attack priority (this being the only aspect ever mentioned on the issue)..
..this creating a double shield in confrontations
1/ the attacking units not only automatically fire upon the workers at the outset (and the players need to manually reassign their units to attack "real threats" (high dps units))
2/ but the workers act as a constant wall/buffer in these confrontations by being re targeted again and again by the attack units each time the previous target has been destroyed...
(again i'm not saying i disapprove of this system, on the contrary, any micro imperative/gameplay feature is vital in my book :^) )
However.. when workers are gone.. this mechanic is still present.. or is it?
Case study:
Recently, the "1 1 1" is questioned / quoted as imbalanced left and right ..whereas it seems (to me) obvious that this build should be the one players should aspire to (since it allows for maximum strategy potential / hiding their strategy the best for one)...
i quote sotg: "end of the only battle, 3 or 4 banshee remain that win the game"
i humbly admit that i lost (with the huge ui change in galaxy) where these fields are nurtured.. but i know they are still there :^)
So i guess my question are: .. Is this ordering flawed? Should they not be regarded as as important in the grand scheme of "the balancing act"?
As a little note to this topic: something I've always noticed is that workers have a low attack priority when not repairing or fighting. I.E. if you run a group of 20 Zerglings into a mineral line guarded by 3 Marines, you can't simply a-move to cause the lings to kill all the SCVs; they'll all try and get out to kill the 3 Marines first. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. Inherently it's obviously good, as otherwise you'd just bring a couple of SCVs to each battle and the enemy's army would go nuts trying to attack those, but the downside is that in some situations you can easily use a sacrificial force to take out a bunch of SCVs, but are blocked by the fact that your units will automatically engage the enemy army anyway when you wanted economic damage.
Only when the workers attack/repair do they have an attack priority.. maybe it lowers even more if they are mining (sounds logical :D).
So then.. at the outset of the battle, you send them to a patch behind the confronting army (so easy without black fog :^p) , then tell them to attack when they are within the opponent's army so as to disrupt any micro the opponent has made until then.
Why is the attack prioritization of the units never discussed in the balance discussions?
i think the blizz work is great by the way, so this is analysis, not whining by any means :^)
As i see it, units are ordered in a hierarchy set by the importance of the units (some might argue that it is purely an "A move" attack consideration, but it is clear that in a 200 200 battle, most of the targeting choices are made automatically).
The workers take highest attack priority (this being the only aspect ever mentioned on the issue)..
..this creating a double shield in confrontations
1/ the attacking units not only automatically fire upon the workers at the outset (and the players need to manually reassign their units to attack "real threats" (high dps units))
2/ but the workers act as a constant wall/buffer in these confrontations by being re targeted again and again by the attack units each time the previous target has been destroyed...
(again i'm not saying i disapprove of this system, on the contrary, any micro imperative/gameplay feature is vital in my book :^) )
However.. when workers are gone.. this mechanic is still present.. or is it?
Case study:
Recently, the "1 1 1" is questioned / quoted as imbalanced left and right ..whereas it seems (to me) obvious that this build should be the one players should aspire to (since it allows for maximum strategy potential / hiding their strategy the best for one)...
i quote sotg: "end of the only battle, 3 or 4 banshee remain that win the game"
i humbly admit that i lost (with the huge ui change in galaxy) where these fields are nurtured.. but i know they are still there :^)
So i guess my question are: .. Is this ordering flawed? Should they not be regarded as as important in the grand scheme of "the balancing act"?
As a little note to this topic: something I've always noticed is that workers have a low attack priority when not repairing or fighting. I.E. if you run a group of 20 Zerglings into a mineral line guarded by 3 Marines, you can't simply a-move to cause the lings to kill all the SCVs; they'll all try and get out to kill the 3 Marines first. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. Inherently it's obviously good, as otherwise you'd just bring a couple of SCVs to each battle and the enemy's army would go nuts trying to attack those, but the downside is that in some situations you can easily use a sacrificial force to take out a bunch of SCVs, but are blocked by the fact that your units will automatically engage the enemy army anyway when you wanted economic damage.
Only when the workers attack/repair do they have an attack priority.. maybe it lowers even more if they are mining (sounds logical :D).
So then.. at the outset of the battle, you send them to a patch behind the confronting army (so easy without black fog :^p) , then tell them to attack when they are within the opponent's army so as to disrupt any micro the opponent has made until then.
fun fun fun
:^)