EPTThat being said, I have a better understanding of the differences between the two game's pathin systems thanks to your post. Keep up the good work.
Broodwar and Starcraft 2 - Pathing - Page 8
| Blogs > Thieving Magpie |
|
Ghostface_Killa
United States168 Posts
That being said, I have a better understanding of the differences between the two game's pathin systems thanks to your post. Keep up the good work. | ||
Falling
Canada11557 Posts
On September 20 2013 13:15 aZealot wrote: 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?) Well you have to look beyond dps. What matters is WHERE the damage falls. For instance the reaver has a crazy 100 damage, splash damage. But it has a huge cooldown period before the next attack. Therefore you can pick it up after only one shot and micro it away. If you just look at DPS and terrible, terrible damage you would miss that every time there is a gap between firing, there is space to move the unit back or forward. If the damage is spread out over time (continous fire), then you can move it back, but you are losing damage. So front-loaded damage actually rewards moving your units more than units with continous fire. Or continous fire with only a short cooldown. This is the twitchy, rapid micro that made pro-gamers famous with certain units. Here's a partially completed image of what I mean. I was going to use it for a blog that I wrote and then got too discouraged to post it. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vmb8Pwd.png) Over time the continous might do more damage. Or perhaps the burst shot might do more damage. That doesn't really matter. What matters is how easy it is to get off a shot and immediately retreat without interrupting the damage output. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
I'm not sure if one is definitively better than the other, though? It would depend on the units and the nature and extent of damage delivered, I think. And, I suppose, here too is the trade off between pre-engagement setup over in-battle micro. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On September 20 2013 13:29 aZealot wrote: Ah, I see what you mean now, Falling. An interesting insight. Thanks. I'm not sure if one is definitively better than the other, though? It would depend on the units and the nature and extent of damage delivered, I think. And, I suppose, here too is the trade off between pre-engagement setup over in-battle micro. Who says you can't have both? | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
I feel like some of the successes of BW can be adapted into SC2 without fundamentally changing the game. A slight boost to the unit radii of marines and marauders would reduce the dps density of that composition, and having small terrain irregularities that discourage movement over specific types of ground would help units move more herky-jerky. While this wouldn't help with the ramp problems, as it wouldn't be removing any excellent pathing from the game, having a sort of "disperse" command, that spaces units out more, without outright splitting them, would be a nice addition. Maybe BW-style movement could be fully integrated into SC2 with a "disperse-move" command. This would allow splash damage and other anti-deathball measures be made more powerful, and would significantly improve the ability of players to skirmish without losing everything in one big battle. As much as I prefer playing SC2 to BW, the constant army positioning and repositioning isn't nearly as fun to watch as constant fighting and mid-battle micro. | ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
A lot of what was loved about Broodwar came from the fact that one needed to overcome the game itself. this is the crux of the whole thing | ||
|
T0MORR0W
United States101 Posts
Because SC2 does not seem to be overwhelmingly challenging from a physical standpoint, a strategically brilliant player can stand out by being able to play more intelligently than their "better" opponent. What makes MVP or Stephano so good? Or what prevents elfi, and Goody before him, from being unbelievably bad for that matter? It's certainly not the fact that they are mechanically superior to their competitors. Likewise, MC may show top-notch skill when he wins tournaments, but it's his enormous repertoire of strategies that makes him really dangerous. I enjoy the aspect of SC2 that prevents a sufficiently skilled player from dominating a slower player of comparable strategic ability, and I would be sad to see the Stephanos and MVPs become mid-tier players because they were playing a game where their advantage in intelligence couldn't make up for the fact that many of the other championship caliber players they face have an advantage in physical skill. That said, amazing displays of skill contribute hugely to the viewing experience and excitement of the game. I just like how in SC2, they take a secondary role to good strategy. Great Blog! | ||
|
FrogsAreDogs
Canada181 Posts
I believe there is a major lack of deep understanding in the foreign community regarding SC2. In fact, the more SC2 I play, the more similarities I see with BW. The small actions that distinguishes a pro from a casual player are present in both BW and SC2 and these actions occur at every step of the game. Saying that Sc2 is more of a guessing game than BW is also ridiculous. I don't really want to start up an aimless argument or debate regarding this post. So if you have anything to discuss please message me. | ||
|
Ero-Sennin
United States756 Posts
| ||
|
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
god i miss broodwar | ||
|
rebdomine
6040 Posts
On September 20 2013 15:26 Burns wrote: The drone blocking the ramp was from a Jaedong game right, he was vs a protoss. He started losing the engagements because none of his hydras were reinforcing. Then he found the block and with his 'new' hydras rolled over the toss. god i miss broodwar Jaedong vs Flying. I remember watching that game and had a good laugh when the camera panned to Flying's booth and he had this really bewildered look on his face when the hydras came out. He must've been thinking "wtf I was winning this game. where did all those hydras come from!?" | ||
|
Quixotic_tv
Germany130 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8197582703 We need more of this, with a wider variety of usage than my example. And it will come, as long as people will play SC2. Do not forget that the BW pro scene is much older than SC2. You cannot expect the elaborate usage of units or the macro that is being done in BW. You just can not. Pro players are the vanguard of the scene playwise. But that does and can not mean they have already figured out the game as much as they have BW. In my opinion a lot of people that compare BW with SC2 are not doing justice to the fact that BW is much more elaborate than SC2 simply because it is much older. ALso they are different games, as the honorary OP already said. Edit: Thanks for the amazing read, dear OP! | ||
|
DinoToss
Poland507 Posts
On September 20 2013 14:42 T0MORR0W wrote: I think this helped me understand better one of the things that I like most about watching SC2 (I have little to no BW experience so this is not intended as a comparative statement, just a declarative one). I love to see games and series in which the "better" player loses (or in which one of two players of similar skill stood no chance at all). I think what is beautiful about the great SC2 players is that it's NOT necessarily their mechanical skill that separates them from the crowd. Because SC2 does not seem to be overwhelmingly challenging from a physical standpoint, a strategically brilliant player can stand out by being able to play more intelligently than their "better" opponent. What makes MVP or Stephano so good? Or what prevents elfi, and Goody before him, from being unbelievably bad for that matter? It's certainly not the fact that they are mechanically superior to their competitors. Likewise, MC may show top-notch skill when he wins tournaments, but it's his enormous repertoire of strategies that makes him really dangerous. I enjoy the aspect of SC2 that prevents a sufficiently skilled player from dominating a slower player of comparable strategic ability, and I would be sad to see the Stephanos and MVPs become mid-tier players because they were playing a game where their advantage in intelligence couldn't make up for the fact that many of the other championship caliber players they face have an advantage in physical skill. That said, amazing displays of skill contribute hugely to the viewing experience and excitement of the game. I just like how in SC2, they take a secondary role to good strategy. Great Blog! But the article itself presents a way, that seems to be "in BW you could have been an SC2er and/or BWer" in SC2 you have to SC2er. It even makes an example of Savior who was such a brilliant strategist that he flopped twice as fast place with use of strategy. Savior in that era had only 150-200 apm and nada was 350-400 apm, he still outmicroed and outmultitasked him with the deterministic behavior, the same way SC2 super intelligent pro does to 400 apm monster. It was much harder to make, but by no means impossible. For me this just shows that SC2's glass is always half empty. And im sad that SC2 fans actually accept the view of SC2 having almost all of the time only half of the water as preference. Maybe it is ;( Please read both God's of battlefield final edits. It really depicts that savior was truly almost purely about army movements / concaves, ambushes and build orders. The 2nd part of God of battlefiend establishes how Savior influenced every zerg that happened after him, while Savior showed BW how zerg should be played, all the tricks from now on were used on daily basis. Yes people payed more attention to engagements, and pre determinism of fights. But new generation came and still and had new buffer, they saw what Savior did and STILL pushed it further with additional micro and macro (Jaedong) In a way you could say that Savior invented SC2 tactics within BW zerg play, but because new "better" people came(last stage of BW era, TBLS), they accepted this as daily routine and pushed the boundry even further to near god-like level. It is by no means a degeneration, it is evolution. Its just predeterminism stopped being the biggest influence because there was another layer on top of that. This article says there is no another layer in case of SC2. For me this is not even foothold. No matter how i want to look at. The only possibility is that people actually prefer LESS over MORE. Which i find to be a lie, of new generations. Because most of the time the people who say that preface that by saying I have little to no BW experience so this is not intended as a comparative statement, just a declarative one I loved SC2 just as much as you do but i rediscovered BW later on and couldnt go back because, i knew i would be lying to myself. | ||
|
Leddix
Denmark25 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
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. I agree with the sentiment, but it may simply be that there is no way to achieve these things within the framework provided by SC2's unit movement. BW default unit movement was highly suboptimal in terms of: - Time taken to get an army across the map - Time taken to bring concentrated DPS to bear - Time taken to negotiate chokes or other difficult terrain This created windows of opportunity for player input and positioning to influence the outcome of an engagement. By those same metrics, default unit movement in SC2 is almost optimal. The only thing SC2 units are bad at is dodging splash damage. And what do we see? Right: the only meaningful examples of player micro involve the mitigation of splash damage. Lings vs Widow mines. Marines/Lings vs banelings. Viper vs Colossus. Bio vs Storm. Drops vs Tanks. In every other situation it's macro or preset unit counters that determine the outcome. Imagine a racing game where the car automatically takes the perfect racing line, and all the driver needs to do is manage the accelerator and brake. We could talk all we wanted about how there's still an unattainable skill cap in doing that perfectly, or how there are still challenges to be appreciated in the pit lane or the team's R&D department, but it's still less fun for the driver, and (for most people) less varied and fun to watch. So if unit pathing is off the table, what else could we make units less good at? | ||
|
MikeMM
Russian Federation221 Posts
| ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
 | ||
|
Stratos
Czech Republic6104 Posts
Surely, you can't deny the epicness of the reaver and the way scarabs work (like actually most of the time, if you play right), that's also certainly one of the reasons many people including myself got into this game. Muta micro etc. Let alone finding the time to actually micro. What I'm saying is that there is clearly much more to BW than just the pathing. Anyway great job man. 5/5 | ||
| ||
