EPTBroodwar and Starcraft 2 - Pathing - Page 7
| Blogs > Thieving Magpie |
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
b3n3tt3
595 Posts
| ||
|
iGn1t3
Hong Kong73 Posts
| ||
|
Phyanketto
United States601 Posts
I feel like this is true of a lot of games. There was this magical window from around 1998 to 2004 where bad/simple coding made for amazing games. Later, their sequels, which were optimized and smoothed out, still can't touch how good the original games were. CS:GO, D3, SSBB, and SC2, I'm looking at you. It seems like good programming is what is taking esports out of the hands of the gamer, and putting it into teams of 5. Hopefully some Indie game with poor coding and infinite micro potential shows up and becomes wildly popular in China or Korea. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
However, reading through some of these responses it surprises me, like lichter above, that people can still get BW vs SC2 from this blog. The core argument running through the blog is that these are fundamentally different games and should be treated as such. I take it, as a point of hope for SC2, is that "emergent behaviour", as Wyatt calls it, is as applicable to SC2 as it was to BW. And that the game has a lot left to reveal, but in its own way as a standalone game in its own right. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
 Also now I know the Dragoon Mystery lol | ||
|
Phyanketto
United States601 Posts
On September 20 2013 11:29 shin_toss wrote: Holy shit man.. you almost said pretty much everything I had in mind about pathing/unit control for SC2 and BW for a long time. I hope Blizzard sees and consider these things for LotV.. its never to latee. Great writing Also now I know the Dragoon Mystery lol Actually, now I'm hoping that Day[9]'s RTS is going to fix this. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 20 2013 11:20 aZealot wrote: I'm glad that this blog is now spotlighted/featured. It deserves it. However, reading through some of these responses it surprises me, like lichter above, that people can still get BW vs SC2 from this blog. The core argument running through the blog is that these are fundamentally different games and should be treated as such. I take it, as a point of hope for SC2, is that "emergent behaviour", as Wyatt calls it, is as applicable to SC2 as it was to BW. And that the game has a lot left to reveal, but in its own way as a standalone game in its own right. The thing is, people insist that SC2 should become more like BW--that it should enact changes that make its core design like BW--when it cannot possibly be. The core concept in this blog shows that a lot of the micro-ability of units relied on the fact that pathfinding and unit movement and positioning was inefficient, causing players to go around those inefficiencies to get the most out of those untis, and that these inefficiencies were a result of the way space is defined within the game. As ThievingMagpie puts it, the GAME BOARDS are different; as different as snake and ladders' board is to Catan's. Because of this, applying BW's micro-ability isn't as simple as a lot of people assume; in fact it is impossible to make it the same because the game boards, and thus the way space is defined, are different. Basically to have pathing/unit behavior similar to BW, they'd have to change the entire game. Instead of saying "BW was better, let's make SC2 like BW", people should be seeking solutions unique to SC2, because it is a different game--not only in terms of the way it plays, but fundamentally in the way it is designed. Constantly bringing up BW design contributes little, because it cannot be applied to SC2 directly. Yes we can take cues from BW, such as the importance of micro-ability and the effect of open ended unit control allowing players to showcase more skill, but its application within SC2 needs to be unique to SC2 and its game board's design. Another thing to consider is included in my first post: that 'bugs' or inefficiencies will never be accepted by the current generation of gamers. If LotV or SC3 ships with quirks similar to BW, the community at large (people who buy the game to play it and care not for the proscene) will be outraged and have it patched within weeks. | ||
|
LordofAscension
United States589 Posts
Well done. ~LoA | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On September 20 2013 11:48 lichter wrote: The thing is, people insist that SC2 should become more like BW--that it should enact changes that make its core design like BW--when it cannot possibly be. The core concept in this blog shows that a lot of the micro-ability of units relied on the fact that pathfinding and unit movement and positioning was inefficient, causing players to go around those inefficiencies to get the most out of those untis, and that these inefficiencies were a result of the way space is defined within the game. As ThievingMagpie puts it, the GAME BOARDS are different; as different as snake and ladders' board is to Catan's. Because of this, applying BW's micro-ability isn't as simple as a lot of people assume; in fact it is impossible to make it the same because the game boards, and thus the way space is defined, are different. Basically to have pathing/unit behavior similar to BW, they'd have to change the entire game. Instead of saying "BW was better, let's make SC2 like BW", people should be seeking solutions unique to SC2, because it is a different game--not only in terms of the way it plays, but fundamentally in the way it is designed. Constantly bringing up BW design contributes little, because it cannot be applied to SC2 directly. Yes we can take cues from BW, such as the importance of micro-ability and the effect of open ended unit control allowing players to showcase more skill, but its application within SC2 needs to be unique to SC2 and its game board's design. Another thing to consider is included in my first post: that 'bugs' or inefficiencies will never be accepted by the current generation of gamers. If LotV or SC3 ships with quirks similar to BW, the community at large (people who buy the game to play it and care not for the proscene) will be outraged and have it patched within weeks. Oh, I agree. To the larger point of players getting to grips with the game presented to them (I've been saying this in my own way for quite a while now), and to the other point of a game being shipped with (intentional) bugs or inefficiencies getting short shrift. As you say, developments to SC2 (if necessary) have to come from within the structure of its "own board". Not only is asking for a complete revamp ridiculous, it also overlooks sunk costs and path dependency. | ||
|
TrippSC2
United States209 Posts
On September 20 2013 11:48 lichter wrote: Another thing to consider is included in my first post: that 'bugs' or inefficiencies will never be accepted by the current generation of gamers. If LotV or SC3 ships with quirks similar to BW, the community at large (people who buy the game to play it and care not for the proscene) will be outraged and have it patched within weeks. This is a good point and completely true. It would be really interesting to see an RTS that was designed around what BW did by accident. It would be cool to see a design where the variance between micro'd and unmicro'd units was larger, but it was because it was designed that way not because if you don't micro your units, they will have a mind of their own and fuck up your day. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 20 2013 12:13 TrippSC2 wrote: This is a good point and completely true. It would be really interesting to see an RTS that was designed around what BW did by accident. It would be cool to see a design where the variance between micro'd and unmicro'd units was larger, but it was because it was designed that way not because if you don't micro your units, they will have a mind of their own and fuck up your day. I still think it's possible to add that level of micro-ability and unit efficiency in SC2. But it will not be the same as BW. We'll have to think of a solution unique to SC2. | ||
|
zenkicker
257 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On September 20 2013 12:14 lichter wrote: I still think it's possible to add that level of micro-ability and unit efficiency in SC2. But it will not be the same as BW. We'll have to think of a solution unique to SC2. Not SC2, but the one that is designed by Day[9] is worthy to be BW's successor. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Moving shots for the vulture, archon, drone. SC2 is physically hardcoded to NOT let you do that with ground units. Me and Maverick use an insane work around to do it. Air units? Most air units are tweaked so moving shot isn't very effective or rewarding. There is even a bug Lalush just found where if air units are slightly overlapping they will go to a dead stop. You see this often with vikings. The air units themselves have no qualms with the inefficiencies of ground pathing. They way they are set up in BW encourages air dancing and micro. SC2 not so much. Now lets see, dragoons and how they must stand in place to take a shot. This adds in some really nicely paced micro. Sure it is just stutter stepping but the degree of difficulty in it is amped up. Zealots vs hydras. Hydralisks would have to stand in place to get a shot off, just like the zealot had to. Of course a zealot had to stand still long enough to attack, so if a hydralisk was retreating he couldn't get a shot off. This led to absolutely beautiful micro between both parties and had absolutely NOTHING to do with pathing. Yes, both SC2 and BW are entirely different games due to many differences, but pathing isn't some huge barrier, blizzard literally did not look into how each unit in BW had a degree of weight and different control. Compare a vulture to a marine. The vulture accelerated, and flew across the terrain. And then the marine was obviously more grounded with instant acceleration. Compare this to SC2 marine hellion. Hellions turn on a dime, acelerate on a dime, decelerate on a dime. If you look carefully you will see just how much attention blizz payed to how units actually moved and fought in BW. A tank would keep tracking its target in BW. All it took to shoot was a stop or attack command. In SC2 a tank quickly swivels its turret to the default position even in the middle of combat. Same with the immortal. In BW a marine would ready its gun, fire, lower its weapon, and then start moving. In SC2 a marine will ready its gun, fire (you can immediately order a move command) and it will start moving despite it looking like it is shooting all of his allies. Its this sort of inattention to micro detail that has a huge impact on the game. In BW most weapons have a period in which the unit must complete their attack animation before being able to move again. This is literally non existant in sc2, the field to modify this does not exist. Moving shots? Bugged, and implemented poorly compared to the beautiful mutalisk dancing we saw in BW. Even then, the worst offender is probably the insane movement speed sc2 units have compared to BW. That itself hurts melee micro much more worse than any improvement in pathing. It isn't just pathfinding. Yes they are different games, but blizzard downright didn't pay very much attention to the small details that made BW micro so amazing. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
While I agree with most of what you said I don't agree it's all pathfinding. Ramps, sure, but not all battles happen on small ramps (and high ground advantage plays a big role because you are forced many times to move up the ramp instead of attack from below). I play both games and I don't find I have to baby-sit my units in bw in open field, and most of the map is open field in bw since there are no force fields that dictate map-design. The OP doesn't say its all about ramps and pathfinding. The unit control limitations as well are said. It greatly affects the outcome of an engagement. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2013 03:31 decemberscalm wrote: This is too simplistic a view. Pathing finding is only a small part of the story. For one, unit design between the two games are so staggeringly different. HP creep, super mobile base destroyers, cliff walking, complete lack of turn rate, attack start up time, standing in place to finish your attack animation, gliding shots on the drone, archon. What comes most to my mind is how excellent units are in SC2 are at base busting. Immortals, marauders, roaches, and banelings come to mind. In BW you wanted to get a siege tank into postion, or a defiler (fragile and easily sniped, hive tech). Spot the difference. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3YgB1Qo.jpg) What is easier to break into a base with? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AJGAv8T.jpg) Next we come to some fundamental decisions. Take a look at Z. Would you ever see SC2 zerg building a nydus canal to transport units for defence? No, you just a-move some super speed lings and mutas anywhere you want as long as you have creep spread. Fundamental difference in defence strategies + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B5CfA1u.jpg) What about general base layouts? SC2 bases are defended by jockeying your army and make sure he isn't able to attack any of your bases when your army isn't there to intercept. What encourages things like storm drops more? What encourages just a-moving a few zealots? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PwACTFc.jpg) The pathfinding only tells a small story. It does play a big part, I'm not saying it doesn't. It helps with things like dps density (how much damage you can deal in a given area). It is much less punishing to fight the edge of another army due to this. More room for micro as well. I could go into the incredible unit physics differences in BW and how SC2 units all just behave the same (which I believe Day9's rant hints more towards) but it would be so much easier to do a vod on it, and I've worked sooooo hard at bringing these sorts of differences in the Starbow mod. To at least give you a very brief example. Compare zealots vs roaches to zealots vs hydras in BW. How much micro is there in both of these examples? In sc2 you simply kite backwards, the zealots have no input given to them to make them more effective. Now compare this to Zealots and hydras in BW. Lets assume we have sc2 pathing. If you are doing it correctly you probably are doing something more akin to blink micro for the hydras, while manually targetting weak units (or switching targets for zealots that are chasing hydras running away forever). Both sides are HEAVILY encouraged to make a wide flank, for ease of micro is to counter the opponents ability to outmaneuver you. This micro is similar to that awkward phase at the start of a tvp, 2 marines vs 1 zealot, except played out in a grander scale with much more micro required. This is my primary example for how BW units could simply bump up their effectiveness by being manually controlled. These fights could go either way depending on how well they are micro'ed. Is there really a difference in roach micro between pro's? Blizz changed the fundamental nature of how melee vs ranged units work in Starcraft. In bw you had speedzealots. A slow hydralisk being pulled backwards would never get hit by that speedzealot. You would need to actually micro to kill it. In sc2, ranged units that are slower than a melee unit WILL get hit 100% of the time, constantly. They cannot retreat. So blizz did things like, make the zealot slower but give it charge so it at least hits some of the time. But does that encourage micro or nullify it? Now imagine a pack of speedlings trying to chase a probe. In BW they will never kill the probe unless the probe runs towards the lings. The player must actually micro the lings to run past it, then confirm the kill. Of course the probe can juke that sort of attempt and get away. Now SC2? The probe will die, 100% of the time. No micro is required for either players. Lings can get a tiny bit more effective, but really, the probe will die it is only a small matter of time. Fundamental differences in how attacks work between SC2 and BW, not pathing. Sorry, I should probably do a vod on a lot of these differences because it is a lot easier to show than explain via text. I leave you with something to think about. SC2 and BW in terms of map size are actually 1:1 matched. But SC2 units travel at MUCH faster rates than BW. This is why you saw a general trend towards bigger and bigger maps in sc2. You'd see 128x128 maps in BW. SC2? 168x168. Even with this difference in scale BW units STILL move roughly 10% slower in relation to rush distances. This is not including creep spread, or units like the ling having their speed buffed. Though I agree with some of your points, Pathing is a big part. And also the infinite unit selections. The OP just discussed the diffrences of SC2 and BW pathing . And why does it make different. | ||
Falling
Canada11596 Posts
For my A-move by Design, I tested the hellion and the vulture and few other units. And the biggest difference in micro handling is that the the vulture has a much shorter burst shot whereas the Hellion has to pause to ge off its entire flame cannon. In fact overall, BW has far more units that have frontloaded damage. Whereas many SC2 units have very long attacks that deal damage over time. (The biggest culprit is of course the collosus.) Unit acceleration and deceleration into shooting combined with burst shot damage is a huge deal in creating micro opportunities and I do not think it is limited to the old BW engine. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On September 20 2013 12:50 Falling wrote: Yeah, I do agree with decembercalm that it isn't just pathfinding/ isometric view imposed over grid that created microbility. For my A-move by design blog, I tested the hellion and the vulture and few other units. And the biggest difference in micro handling is that the the vulture has a much shorter burst shot whereas the Hellion has to pause to ge off its entire flame cannon. In fact overall, BW has far more units that have frontloaded damage. Whereas many SC2 units have very long attacks that deal damage over time. (The biggest culprit is of course the collosus.) Unit acceleration and deceleration into shooting combined with burst shot damage is a huge deal in creating micro opportunities and I do not think it is limited to the old BW engine. That's interesting, Falling. If I read you right, can I construe that as saying that BW might actually have had more "terrible terrible" damage in mind? (At least this would be one, and ironic, way of looking at it?) | ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On September 20 2013 10:49 NoobCrunch wrote: Why can't they take colossus out of the game already? I used to think they were retarded in 2010 and I still do now when laddering. Go whine in some other threads | ||
| ||
