Great read! Since BW was before my RTS-Time i only know tanks the way they are right now. Taking away the "smart-ai" seems like a very good idea to me to promote more positional play and to make the most efficient use of the tank a bit more difficult, aswell as opening more opportunities in engaging set-up tank lines.
But with enabling Overkill for tanks (or any other unit), wouldn´t there be several changes to damage output required to not throw the current balance completely off? As I understand it, the "smart-ai" isn´t a tank-exclusive feature, every unit is "smart" enough to know, when their enemy is about to get destroyed. So what implications has this for example for collossi in pvp? (I don´t know anything about that matchup other than collosi are quite popular) Or how could this affect a ling vs marine battle in the very early game. I think the mechanic in question is, as you stated, a design choice. 2 years passed with people learning the game and the mechanics within. To later on change such an elemental part of one major aspect (who shoots where and when?) could cause a lot of unintended consequences.
It's a trade-off because now that it's easier to evenly distribute the damage, the damage got nerfed. Not only that, but the cost of the tank and supply went up in SC2. So in order to get this 'awesome tank' that will nearly automatically maximize its damage, we get less damage, they cost more, and we get less of them.
This is the point where the logic runs into a real problem.
You are correct that, in making nukes more accessible, the damage of them had to be nerfed. It's obvious from the word "go" that you can't put that much damage on such a low-tech ability. However, you are assuming that the ST's damage was nerfed due to "smart-ai" (which is not AI so much as hit-scan attacks. SC1 STs took a couple of frames between the "shot" and the impact, during which time other Tanks could fire. it's functionally no different than Marines not doing overkill). Unlike the nuke case, it is not obvious and required that STs needed a damage nerf. Indeed, I would argue that STs as they stand are too expensive/do too little damage for their cost.
Much like nukes and Scouts in SC1, they're imbalanced in the wrong direction. It's my belief that we ought to have that damage (or at least, better than what's there now) and hit-scan attacks at the same time.
To really hammer home why automation is not inherently better than allowing manual control, I'd draw your attention to combat in traditional MMO's vs FPS (or even FPS RPG's like Mass Effect 2.) If we're going with the idea that every shot hitting every single time is smarter ai, then MMO's combat system is 'smarter' you just have to manage cooldowns and it'll auto hit every time. Even if you're using a gun like Star Wars Old Republic.
This argument rather misses the point. The reason FPS games do this sort of stuff is because of where the focus of the gameplay in those games is. In a traditional RPG, you generally control a party, not an individual unit. In a traditional RPG, the idea is that, if you want a character to hit something more often, you use the game mechanics to give them a better chance to hit stuff.
It's the difference between an action game and a strategy game: one is intimately controlled, and the other is not.
1) More Incentive for Terran to Spread Out
In SC1, units tended to be more spread out in general, because that's how the AI liked to move. In SC2, tanks naturally cluster together. In SC1, if you just moved your tanks somewhere and sieged them, odds were good that they'd be spread out at least decently on their own. In SC2, you really have to work a lot more for it.
That's putting a lot on the plate of the Terran player. And it's not like Terrans don't already have some of the most involved micro going on.
2) Turning Splashed Damage Against
This is really just #1 in a different way: the Terran is punished more for clustering their tanks than spreading them.
3) Dropping on Top Tank Lines
Again, a restatement of #1 and #2.
4) Incentive for Terran Opponent to Spread Out
Which could be provided by simply making Tanks do more damage or making them cheaper.
5) Appeal to Race Distinctives
This is just a restatement of #1, #2, and #3, just from the perspective of "I want immobile splash damage on a race."
Can we agree that giving the player multiple options in moving their troops around is better? For instance, if they had tools that allowed them to spread out a little better, allowed them to clump up, and also to stay in formation relative to the the other units in the group? Why would we want just one of these options?
This is classic PC-gamer thinking: if we just add more and more options to the interface, it'll get better.
I recall the quote, "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
This argument rather misses the point. The reason FPS games do this sort of stuff is because of where the focus of the gameplay in those games is. In a traditional RPG, you generally control a party, not an individual unit. In a traditional RPG, the idea is that, if you want a character to hit something more often, you use the game mechanics to give them a better chance to hit stuff.
I'm not sure why you are talking about parties in RPG's, I was talking about MMO combat. And specifically comparing it to FPS style gunfighting as found in ME2 (despite it kinda being a RPG) and MMO style gunfighting combat as found in SWTOR which is timing your cooldowns on your x number of abilities but with cover, dodging, and aiming largely absent. scifi Gunfight vs scifi Gunfight. But one has skill shots and won't hit everytime and the other will hit every single time and so removes the skill of aiming/ dodging. The one isn't smarter than the other, but one allows for more skill in movement, aim, and dodging.
It's the difference between an action game and a strategy game: one is intimately controlled, and the other is not.
Actually this comparison was quite deliberate because highlights the key distinction between BW RTS and pretty much every other RTS in existence. And this distinction seems a struggle for many people to see despite things like Day9's frisbee analogy video. (Especially if SC2 was their first RTS or they came from an entirely different RTS franchise. I'm not sure I would've gotten it if I had come straight from Age II.) Despite all the talk that SC is strictly a macro game, a key distintinction is SC tied the RTS genre to intimate control of your units. No it's no as individual as FPS, but it can be down to a handful of units or even one unit. It's almost like what you'd get if mashed together a strategy game and a fighting game.
There are tons of strategy games out there that require varying degrees of control of your units. There is zero execution in Turn-based strategy games like Civilization and there is some execution of skill in older RTS's. But it's largely absent in modern RTS's like Battle for Middle Earth 2 and SupCom2. You just kinda move units around the map and let them do their thing. SC is about unit control and strategy.
Thing is people LOVE marine-split vs banelings and stutter step, but when you turn around and say we should have more of these sort of micro interactions, people balk as though this would suddenly mean bad unit ai and 'fighting against the computer.' The alliance of Strategy + Intimate control of units is what made BW such an exciting spectator sport. Without intimate control, goodbye marine-baneling micro, goodbye stutter step, and we join Battle for Middle Earth 2 and SupCom2 as a strictly strategy game.
Tank nerf is actually it's more likely a combination of things- unit clumping in general, 'smart-ai' and faster rate of fire. But getting damage back for slower shots and overkill is more in line with mech play and allows for a greater variety in play with against Tanks.
But you're wrong to say that BW tanks automatically spread themselves. If you told a hotkeyed group of tanks to seige, they'd seige in the line they were travelling and be packed quite close together. Same with mass lurker burrow. You actually have to manually spread them out for them to be in good position. (It is however possible to get them super close so the units overlap with enough micro.)
As for Terran's having a full plate to micro. Ok fair enough, but that just is a call for more interesting micro options for the other races to up the ante. But I obviously have to limit the scope of my already lengthy blog. I don't see that as very weighty argument against this as I would happily see more micro options go to P an Z.
Yes 1-3 are all dealing with the effects of overkill, but it's different, specific applications of overkill. 5) Is more about how SC had entirely different feel to their races. Mech play, specifically splash damage use or abuse was one of those large distinctives.
This is classic PC-gamer thinking: if we just add more and more options to the interface, it'll get better.
I recall the quote, "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
Ok, but is the option of two sufficient? We're not adding 50 options. Right now you have auto clumped units pushing and shoving and to counteract that you have hotkey groups, and brute force apm to spread your units. All I'm suggesting is to expand the ground magic box (which already exists btw, so we're not adding anything new) so that it actually works for SC2 armies and maybe allow armies on the march to spread out more which can create an interesting tactic in and of itself.
Because I'm not sure what the ultimate conclusion of
"It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
is. If I look at SC2's so-called competitors, I can think of a LOT of things that could be removed... spells, macro mechanics, workers, heck even resources and unit producing structures. I don't know where you start or stop using this argument as there isn't much that's necessary to an RTS. So then, in my mind it's more helpful to think: if we are increasing the power of splash damage... then there should be a few useful tools to deal with it and so I listed a couple possible ones that already existed in the same franchise.
Stuff like this seems so simple, yet we cant have it cuz SC2 seems to be locked into what it is. So many design choices seem to just been thrown aside when they were making the game. Its like they thought they were fixing something like a bug. When in reality its a major design choice. This reminds me of the Warcraft 1 Dev Blog, where he talked about limiting control groups not because there was no way to select all the units, but rather they actually put thought into the mechanics of the game.
"Hey man remember overkill in BW?"
Yea I hated that, all my tanks killing one unit
Well lets fix it.
SC2 absolutely needs a pro-mod now. We need to fix these things that are so blantly killing the game's excitement
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: Thing is people LOVE marine-split vs banelings and stutter step, but when you turn around and say we should have more of these sort of micro interactions, people balk as though this would suddenly mean bad unit ai and 'fighting against the computer.'
No, people balk because virtually every example that people give of these things from SC1 is a result of bad AI and fighting the interface. If people would come up with ideas that evolve naturally from visible game rules, then there would be a lot less balking.
Marine splitting is a result of the way units move and what Banelings do to Marines. Stutter-step is the result of units that have a low "spin-up" time to fire, a low "spin-down" time after firing, and can instantly shoot in a different direction. None of those things represent fighting the interface; they're just stuff you do with the units.
Look at what you're suggesting. The current pathing is the way it is now because it is the most efficient way to get all of the units from point A to point B. Therefore, any "spread" movement would by definition be less efficient. You're saying you want to break the pathing AI, making it objectively worse.
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: But you're wrong to say that BW tanks automatically spread themselves. If you told a hotkeyed group of tanks to seige, they'd seige in the line they were travelling and be packed quite close together. Same with mass lurker burrow. You actually have to manually spread them out for them to be in good position. (It is however possible to get them super close so the units overlap with enough micro.)
How much they are spread or bunch up is relative. SC1 units do not natively bunch up as much as SC2 units do. So SC1 tanks are relatively more likely to be spread out compared to their SC2 counterparts. Even moreso when dealing with multiple control groups.
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: Yes 1-3 are all dealing with the effects of overkill, but it's different, specific applications of overkill.
It's the same effect viewed from three different perspectives. The effect is that you need to split your tanks. The perspectives are why you need it and how you get punished for not doing so.
This is classic PC-gamer thinking: if we just add more and more options to the interface, it'll get better.
I recall the quote, "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
Ok, but is the option of two sufficient?
But it's not two. Right now, we have Move, Patrol, Attack/Move, and Hold Position, in addition to unit-specific abilities. You're suggesting that we add something on-top of all of that, some kind of Spread/Attack/Move, or just a toggle switch that makes them spread.
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: All I'm suggesting is to expand the ground magic box (which already exists btw, so we're not adding anything new) so that it actually works for SC2 armies and maybe allow armies on the march to spread out more which can create an interesting tactic in and of itself.
My problem is that you're doing this by adding another command to the already existing stack of commands. Your thinking is overly simplistic: units bunch up too much for AoE to be too strong, so let's give people a button to make units not bunch up so much. The correct answer is to do something that feels natural and organic within the game, not give people more and more buttons.
Look at how stutter-step and Marine splitting evolve organically from the rules. That is the kind of thing you should be looking to create, not a magic "fix the problem" button.
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: Because I'm not sure what the ultimate conclusion of
"It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
is. If I look at SC2's so-called competitors, I can think of a LOT of things that could be removed... spells, macro mechanics, workers, heck even resources and unit producing structures. I don't know where you start or stop using this argument as there isn't much that's necessary to an RTS.
Then you missed the point of the quote. When you take something away, and doing so makes it less perfect, you put it back. When you can't remove anything at all without making it worse, you have achieved perfection.
That's the "ultimate conclusion."
The purpose of the idea is to stop trying to over-complicate things, to not add rules on top of rules on top of rules. The goal is maximum simplicity, to use the fewest rules you can get away with to achieve the goal.
This reminds me of the Warcraft 1 Dev Blog, where he talked about limiting control groups not because there was no way to select all the units, but rather they actually put thought into the mechanics of the game.
Of course, some might argue that they should have put thought into making mechanics that would allow micro while still making unlimited unit selection viable. To put it another way, if you have to make your interface a game design element in order to get people to do what you want, there's something wrong with your game design.
On September 27 2012 22:08 mordek wrote: Wait, where was it said that he wanted a button for Spread/Attack/Move?
When he said, "Can we agree that giving the player multiple options in moving their troops around is better?" You can't give someone "more options" if what you're doing is changing how movement always works. If you change how basic movement works, you don't have the option of the current movement system anymore. You're exchanging one option for another.
"multiple options" implies adding a new move command, not merely changing how the move command works.
On September 27 2012 22:08 mordek wrote: Wait, where was it said that he wanted a button for Spread/Attack/Move?
Absolutely not. A unit spread button would be the worst thing ever. All I'd like to see is the Magic Box system (which already exists in SC2) work better.
Edit And no Nicol it doesn't change how units always move (except the army on the march part.) The default movement is the same (although I'm not a big fan of the pushing and shoving), but we add the condition that if units selected are with a certain distance of each other, but aren't too close they move in formation. So default is normal, magic box applies when you meet the required conditions. Same way it currently works with Mutalisks. And I can't emphasize this enough: this isn't anything new. It is already in the game right now. It just doesn't work very well.
On September 24 2012 08:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: as good as people claim BW was, I'm really not into this game turning into a clone of it.
This is a particularly retarded argument (we don't want SC2 to be BW2) which it pains me to see on TL. Save it for the Bnet forums. Nobody is asking for BW2 here.
The argument goes: 1) There were good design choices in BW which created deep strategic gamplay. 2) There are bad design choices in SC2 which do the opposite. Therefore: 3) What can be learnt from BW that could improve SC2?
Why reinvent the wheel? Take what works and improve from there. I think Browder wants SC2 to be different purely for the sake of being different which is a poor mentality to have if you want to make it 'good'.
On September 24 2012 08:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: as good as people claim BW was, I'm really not into this game turning into a clone of it.
This is a particularly retarded argument (we don't want SC2 to be BW2) which it pains me to see on TL. Save it for the Bnet forums. Nobody is asking for BW2 here.
Perhaps not in this thread, but you can't deny the number of "replace Colossus with Reaver" and similar posts that exist on TL. If tomorrow, there was a post from Blizzard announcing the replacement of the Colossus with the Reaver, of Roaches with Tier 1 Hydras, of Stalkers&Immortals with Dragoons, of Hellions with Vultures, of Swarm Hosts with Lurkers, of Thors with Goliaths, etc, do you honestly believe that the TL forums would shed a metaphorical tear?
Oh, there'd be quite a bit of anger from SC2-only players, but it would be drowned out by the posts from the SC1 faithful just waiting to get their game back.
It is a stupid argument, certainly. But that doesn't mean there isn't a corn kernel of truth there to be found in the turd of fail.
Personally, as someone who absolutely hated Mech-play in SC1 (my most hated matchup to watch was TvT, with TvP a distant second. But then again, I'm a Zerg player, so...), I'm happy to see it gone. I'm glad to see that Terrans can actually go Bio in many matchups and be successful, that the so-called SK-style Terran play is something that really works in non-TvZ matches. I'm happy that the Siege Tank is not the single God-unit of the Terrans (though I'm not happy that the Marine took its place, nor am I entirely pleased that the ST is so weak).
That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind seeing different styles of play from the Terran than just MMM+. But the kind of positional play from SC1 has a real problem: it is almost inherently degenerative. If you find a way to make positional play work, then you've also found a way to make your army substantially more cost-efficient than your opponent's army. Which now means that getting said army is the most important and powerful thing you could ever do. Thus, TvP involved getting maybe 3 Marines just to survive until you get your Factories up. Then, it's Factory only, with a couple of Vessels along for the ride. That's bad; you're basically saying that over half of the Terran units are superfluous in 2-out-of-3 matchups.
Marine splitting is a result of the way units move and what Banelings do to Marines. Stutter-step is the result of units that have a low "spin-up" time to fire, a low "spin-down" time after firing, and can instantly shoot in a different direction. None of those things represent fighting the interface; they're just stuff you do with the units.
Actually this is exactly what most of the micro options that people would like to see brought back into SC2. The vast majority of the micro tricks were the result of the way units move in addition to low 'spin-up' time to fire, and low 'spin-down' time after firing. What you're describing is very similar to moving shot, and hold position micro. As soon as people hear BW micro, they think buggy dragoon ai as though that were the predominant sort of micro that there was. I'd argue it was the minority.
Look at what you're suggesting. The current pathing is the way it is now because it is the most efficient way to get all of the units from point A to point B. Therefore, any "spread" movement would by definition be less efficient. You're saying you want to break the pathing AI, making it objectively worse.
This assumes that efficient movement is the only goal a player may have. Units should go from point A to point B without adding trouble to the ai, I agree. But the question is how do they go from point A to point B? Is clumped better? Not if I'm running through a series of psionic storms. Not if I'm getting shelled by siege tanks. In this case, clumped is not the most efficient thing I want to be doing. I want to be spreading my units out while moving forwards or back. Magic box allows me to spread efficiently. Point A to Point B is a single purpose goal, but most players have more goals than that if AoE is in play.
re: Tank spread. They'll siege in a clumped line as a opposed to a clumped ball. It's not any sort of spread that a Terran would want although it'll do in a pinch. However, if zealots get into that clumped line, it's lights out. I suppose you could see clumped line as more spread out as clumped ball, but the fact is tanks naturally siege in a less than ideal manner. But in one sense it doesn't matter so much as the Tools suggestion would spread out SC2 tanks a little easier as well.
I don't really see what your major problem is with points 1-3. The entire blog is about overkill so that's naturally what points 1-3 are about. But drop tactics are different then spread zealot lines buffering for dragoons even if they're abusing the same overkill mechanic.
I've already kinda dealt with the 'button' comment. It's spatial selection, not an extra button. It already exists in the game so it's nothing new. It just needs to be better to actually effect the game on a regular basis.
The simplicity rule doesn't go anywhere because we don't agree on what the goal/ end result should be. I say the tiny SC2 magic box loses positional, spread out micro, therefore it should be back because the game loses depth. You say it's not necessary and it's simpler without it. But I think there's gameplay lost rather than superfluous complexity lost. Specifically, magic box gives extremely potent control to the player because the units stay in formation if handled properly. Therefore random movement caused by auto-clumping, pushing and shoving is eliminated and the unit controls become very precise, calculated and controlled.
I'm sure you've seen this posted before, but the reason this works is because the random troop movements have been cut out (this is despite buggy dragoon ai) and the units move as one, spread out and precise. That's a loss of precise control to every unit is SC2 when we don't have that included. It's simpler without it in SC2 I agree, but it's the sort of simplicity such as losing spell-casting, resource collection, or unit producing structures.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind seeing different styles of play from the Terran than just MMM+. But the kind of positional play from SC1 has a real problem: it is almost inherently degenerative. If you find a way to make positional play work, then you've also found a way to make your army substantially more cost-efficient than your opponent's army. Which now means that getting said army is the most important and powerful thing you could ever do. Thus, TvP involved getting maybe 3 Marines just to survive until you get your Factories up. Then, it's Factory only, with a couple of Vessels along for the ride. That's bad; you're basically saying that over half of the Terran units are superfluous in 2-out-of-3 matchups.
No, the second bolded statement does not follow from the first. What you are forgetting is that mech CAN be more cost efficient, but not necessarily. Siege up out in the middle, clumped and vulnerable for flanking your army will suddenly be significantly less cost efficient than your opponent.
Moreover, what makes up for in cost efficiency it suffers in mobility. You don't necessarily have to fight straight up, and can go where the mech army is not. Through doing this you can also frequently outmaneuver the army and catch it out of position in a weak and cost-inefficient setup.
Both of the above reasons are part of why even is mech can theoretically be more cost efficient, it isn't necessarily.
Thus, TvP involved getting maybe 3 Marines just to survive until you get your Factories up. Then, it's Factory only, with a couple of Vessels along for the ride. That's bad; you're basically saying that over half of the Terran units are superfluous in 2-out-of-3 matchups.
Your reasoning behind this isn't correct. The only reason you didn't go bio was because bio was worthless. Once storm was out there is nothing you could do. In BW the damage dealt from storm was too powerful and too quick and with the interface you couldn't dodge the way you would need to for it work.
Basically your reasoning based on what you wrote is that you meched in TvP because the army was more cost-efficient/powerful. This is true, but not because mech was positional and therefore stronger, but because marines sucked against storm. Bio was absurdly cost inefficient. Take out storm though and bio would be dramatically more cost efficient then mech in TvP.
This is classic PC-gamer thinking: if we just add more and more options to the interface, it'll get better.
I recall the quote, "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
Ok, but is the option of two sufficient?
But it's not two. Right now, we have Move, Patrol, Attack/Move, and Hold Position, in addition to unit-specific abilities. You're suggesting that we add something on-top of all of that, some kind of Spread/Attack/Move, or just a toggle switch that makes them spread.
On September 27 2012 15:16 Falling wrote: All I'm suggesting is to expand the ground magic box (which already exists btw, so we're not adding anything new) so that it actually works for SC2 armies and maybe allow armies on the march to spread out more which can create an interesting tactic in and of itself.
My problem is that you're doing this by adding another command to the already existing stack of commands. Your thinking is overly simplistic: units bunch up too much for AoE to be too strong, so let's give people a button to make units not bunch up so much. The correct answer is to do something that feels natural and organic within the game, not give people more and more buttons.
Look at how stutter-step and Marine splitting evolve organically from the rules. That is the kind of thing you should be looking to create, not a magic "fix the problem" button.
You're not reading (or understanding) what falling is saying. No where does he mention a new button. He is talking about magic box movement. What this means is that if you (within a certain spacial area, say a 16x16 square) split your units up, box them, and tell them to move they stay in whatever formation you had them in. No buttons, no lights, no gimmicks. This is exactly how sc2 mutalisks currently behave, and Falling is suggesting allowing ground units to do the same.
I especially liked your section on units on the move compared to units prepared in formation. For me it exposes a little-discussed critique of the deathball: when armies of lings and marines flow across the map like water, there almost isn't a difference between units on the move and units prepared in formation.
In terms of unit movement, I still feel that WC3 just about nailed it. No buggy pathing. No units that do all the work for you. Just endless opportunities to out-micro your opponent all game long.
Marine splitting is a result of the way units move and what Banelings do to Marines. Stutter-step is the result of units that have a low "spin-up" time to fire, a low "spin-down" time after firing, and can instantly shoot in a different direction. None of those things represent fighting the interface; they're just stuff you do with the units.
Actually this is exactly what most of the micro options that people would like to see brought back into SC2. The vast majority of the micro tricks were the result of the way units move in addition to low 'spin-up' time to fire, and low 'spin-down' time after firing. What you're describing is very similar to moving shot, and hold position micro. As soon as people hear BW micro, they think buggy dragoon ai as though that were the predominant sort of micro that there was. I'd argue it was the minority.
It's nothing like either of those. Hold-position micro is based on an AI oddity of the "hold position" command. The same goes for "moving shot"; it's due to the oddities in the way certain commands are processed.
Stutter step is based on easily observable rules of the game: spin-up time, spin-down time, and time to turn and shoot. Hold-position micro is not, because it is not reasonable to expect hold position to have some of the effects it does. Just look at SC2: stutter step is still present, yet hold-position micro is not. Why? Because SC2 doesn't have the same AI quirks, but it does have the same basic rules as SC1.
Stutter step is something you find in most RTS games. As different from other games as they are, even LoL and DotA have it. Hold-position micro is found only in SC1 (and possibly WC2; I wouldn't know).
Look at what you're suggesting. The current pathing is the way it is now because it is the most efficient way to get all of the units from point A to point B. Therefore, any "spread" movement would by definition be less efficient. You're saying you want to break the pathing AI, making it objectively worse.
This assumes that efficient movement is the only goal a player may have. Units should go from point A to point B without adding trouble to the ai, I agree. But the question is how do they go from point A to point B? Is clumped better? Not if I'm running through a series of psionic storms. Not if I'm getting shelled by siege tanks. In this case, clumped is not the most efficient thing I want to be doing. I want to be spreading my units out while moving forwards or back. Magic box allows me to spread efficiently. Point A to Point B is a single purpose goal, but most players have more goals than that if AoE is in play.
The player may have multiple goals, but unless you add a new button, there can only be one possible move command. Thus, movement can happen in only one of two ways: the most direct route, or not the most direct route. The player will assume that it will be the most direct route, because he didn't say, "Move here, but whenever you get around to it is fine by me." He said "Move here now." And it is incumbent upon the game to do what the player asked to do. He wants his units to go there as fast as they possibly can.
You're trying to have it both ways with "magic boxing", which is another peculiarity of the AI. I'd rather add another move command than have some magical voodoo that makes units move differently depending on how many are selected and how close they are. At least with the extra button, it's a legitimate feature that's there in the rules, rather than requiring some arcane incantation to achieve.
On September 28 2012 07:44 Falling wrote: I don't really see what your major problem is with points 1-3. The entire blog is about overkill so that's naturally what points 1-3 are about. But drop tactics are different then spread zealot lines buffering for dragoons even if they're abusing the same overkill mechanic.
The problem is that you restate the same point 3 times. It's not the point itself that's the problem. Only your attempt to say that it's three separate points when it's really all just "spread your tanks or pay the price" with different price-tags.
On September 28 2012 07:44 Falling wrote: The simplicity rule doesn't go anywhere because we don't agree on what the goal/ end result should be. I say the tiny SC2 magic box loses positional, spread out micro, therefore it should be back because the game loses depth. You say it's not necessary and it's simpler without it. But I think there's gameplay lost rather than superfluous complexity lost. Specifically, magic box gives extremely potent control to the player because the units stay in formation if handled properly. Therefore random movement caused by auto-clumping, pushing and shoving is eliminated and the unit controls become very precise, calculated and controlled.
And the whole point of the greater simplicity argument is that you should find a way to provide "extremely potent control to the player" without adding new buttons or breaking the engine by putting in arbitrary mechanics that make units move a different way based on how close they happen to be to each other. Only when you have explored the alternatives and not found a solution, then you should do this.
But not a mechanism hidden behind arbitrary nonsense rules like magic boxes. Once you've proven that it is impossible to get the same effect some other way (and thus cannot remove anymore bits without damaging the whole), then you give the player a new button. The feature will have earned a place on the UI.
Alternatively, one could say that move and attack-move could have different move behaviors, with attack-move being considered the more urgent of the two. That would at least put it on the UI. Though I would prefer that it be a special form of move, with some UI to know when you would get the intended effect and when you wouldn't.
Thus, TvP involved getting maybe 3 Marines just to survive until you get your Factories up. Then, it's Factory only, with a couple of Vessels along for the ride. That's bad; you're basically saying that over half of the Terran units are superfluous in 2-out-of-3 matchups.
Your reasoning behind this isn't correct. The only reason you didn't go bio was because bio was worthless. Once storm was out there is nothing you could do. In BW the damage dealt from storm was too powerful and too quick and with the interface you couldn't dodge the way you would need to for it work.
Basically your reasoning based on what you wrote is that you meched in TvP because the army was more cost-efficient/powerful. This is true, but not because mech was positional and therefore stronger, but because marines sucked against storm. Bio was absurdly cost inefficient. Take out storm though and bio would be dramatically more cost efficient then mech in TvP.
That's a fair point; I'd forgotten about how fast Marines die.
Though I do disagree with your last statement. Reavers are plenty effective against Bio. Especially if the Protoss knows he doesn't have storm to rely on and gets more of them than normal. Without Storm and Reavers, yes, Bio would be more cost effective.
Marine splitting is a result of the way units move Move shot is the result of the way units move. It's no more hidden or revealed any way you look at it. Vultures happen to speed up and slow down in different way. And when you figure out that you can attack without slowing down, bam you've got it. The only reason why it seems 'arbitary' is it doesn't currently exist it SC2. If I compared SupCom2 or Battle for Midde Earth 2 unit movement to SC2 marine movement, I would probably consider marine movement rather arbitrary and hidden because nothing is near that responsive with any unit in either of those games. Also, Warcraft II units were pretty unresponsive compared to SC. Yes, SCBW is probably the only RTS in existence that had things like moving shot... and it lasted over a decade as a competitive game. Coincidence? I think not.
I'm actually not at all surprised (now) to learn that Boxer came to SC from arcade fighting games. Or that Artosis's other game that he follows is fighting games. There's a strange overlap in BW between Strategy and Fighting Games that I would never have thought originally (As I come from turn-based strategy games.)
I don't understand your insistence that magic box is voodoo magic. It's already in the game. Right now. Do you think SC2 air magic box is voodoo magic? Do you think the minor form of SC2 ground magic box is voodoo magic?
Why are you wanting another move command when you just said that adding more buttons would be more complicated? Another move command that auto-spreads units (similar to AofE 2's spread formation I presume) is too binary, too lacking in skill and too limiting. The game determines the spread of your units rather than you determining the spread. Spreading in formation takes skill and you can have much more varied formations than a preset ai spread will ever give you... and that's the entire point.
But not a mechanism hidden behind arbitrary nonsense rules like magic boxes.
It's only arbitrary nonsense because you don't like it. It's no more arbitrary than auto unit clumping that pushes and shoves. It's just another way of moving units around the map that already exists. I don't feel like we need to go through this rigorous strip down of the game to determine that magic box is good. It's already demonstrably good as evidenced by any number of BW vods. And auto-clumping is already demonstrably something a SC2 player has to constantly fight against. I see a problem and I see a solution.
breaking the engine by putting in arbitrary mechanics that make units move a different
Your terminology makes it sound so extreme, but there really is no "breaking of the game". It's just adding an extra rule. I mean I guess I could say they broke the engine so that units no longer stay in formation. (Jaedong has specifically complained about the lack of zergling micro- which relied on formation concaves.) But I don't see it as a broken engine so much as different rules.
As for the 1-3 points being basically the same. Maybe I could have listed as 1 a b c? I still think you're nitpicking here. If I took out shuttle zealot bombs, I feel like I'm not showing the range of possibilities. Similar to getting rid of 1 and 2. Drop harass is a distinctly different scenario. We're splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned.
I saw no problem with the structure of your presentation. Definitely not worth picking hairs over.
Improved magic-boxing for ground units is certainly an attractive solution. It's as simple as number-tweaking during balance, really. Far more elegant than most changes to pathing that have been proposed.
EPT
