|
On September 20 2013 16:41 papalion wrote:What most people forget is that Mr Plott says in his vid that he could be proven wrong within six months, because players might discover amazing mechanics. I want to bring the speedling dodge move vs widow mines into remembrance: + 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!
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
The ''BW is the older and more developed game'' argument is as stale and putrid as an argument can be.
|
On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion.
SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair.
I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose.
Should Blizzard stop patching?
Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics?
|
2-3 months is an exaggeration, but I'd say 1-1½ years to figure out the game at most. Most of the importants stuff was figured out in BW, and now its all about unit compositions, build orders and how to use the little micro tricks that took people 2-3 months to discover (finding them is easy when you came from BW, its a bit more tricky to find a use for them)
Take this article for what it is - its a detailed analysis of the BW movement system, and how it affected the overall game feel. It also points out how the movement system reflects the focus of the game (and for SC2 the design goals). A smooth and easy movement system puts emphasis on stategic decisions, a more complicated and difficult one puts more emphasis on execution and tactics. TBH tactics make for a better spectator sport than strategy, and that is why SC2 while a good strategy game, is not as exiting to watch as BW.
Is also works against SC2 that most units have become more generic, with less extreme values attached to them. The Siege Tank is a prime example - it shoots faster with less damage, but does its damage more reliably. Smartfire on old BW tanks were too much, but instead of removing smartfire, the nerfed the tank - this lead to tanks being UP, so they made unsieged tanks better. Now the mighty Siege tank is reduced to a 1a blob unit rather than the king of positional play.
|
Croatia9446 Posts
On September 20 2013 19:53 papalion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion. SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair. I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose. Should Blizzard stop patching? Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics?
Last BW balance patch was in 2001.
|
One of the best articles I read on TL so far! And now I understand better why so many legends failed to transition to SC2 or don't seem as skilled as before
|
On September 20 2013 19:53 papalion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion. SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair. I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose. Should Blizzard stop patching? Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics?
People are stuck in a bubble where they think that the strategy of SC2 actually developed. Often times the veterans of the SC2 community talk about the evolution of SC2 how this and that wasn't used for however long, but usually for the most part things were only used after they were patched (After the first year or so after that every patch brought a month or two of evolution and a period of stagnation).
AND
On September 20 2013 20:16 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 19:53 papalion wrote:On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion. SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair. I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose. Should Blizzard stop patching? Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics? Last BW balance patch was in 2001.
This.
|
On September 20 2013 20:16 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 19:53 papalion wrote:On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion. SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair. I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose. Should Blizzard stop patching? Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics? Last BW balance patch was in 2001.
And most of the balance patches were not massive changes, they were pretty small.
|
On September 20 2013 20:32 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 20:16 2Pacalypse- wrote:On September 20 2013 19:53 papalion wrote:On September 20 2013 19:46 thezanursic wrote:
Amm SC2 has been figured many times over... then a patch comes around and fucks everything up again.
It took 14 years to figure out BW to the point that it is now. It only takes 2-3 months to figure out SC2 (then Blizzard patches the game and it has to be figured out again)
No game, even holmenkollen 2, can be figured out in 2-3 months in my opinion. SC1 has been patched more than one time, with huge balance changes in a few patches, afair. I do not understand what you want to imply or counterpropose. Should Blizzard stop patching? Or should they implement the accidentally great BW mechanics? Last BW balance patch was in 2001. And most of the balance patches were not massive changes, they were pretty small.
Patch 1.0.4 1998-12-17
Terran
+ Show Spoiler +
Wraith:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas.
Increased cooldown rate of ground attack.
Increased air to air damage to 20.
Dropship:
Increased speed slightly.
Science Vessel:
Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 225 gas.
Increased acceleration
Increased overall damage of Irradiate
Increased sight radius
Battlecruiser:
Increased starting armor to 3
Increased Yamato Cannon damage to 260
Goliath:
Increased ground damage to 12
Increased effectiveness of weapon upgrade on ground to air weapon system
Nuke:
Nuclear Missiles build faster
ComSat:
Decreased energy cost to 50
Starport:
Decrease cost of Starport to 150 minerals, 100 gas
Decreased add-on cost of Control Tower to 50 minerals, 50 gas
Decreased build time
Protoss
+ Show Spoiler +
Archon:
Increased acceleration
Dragoon:
Decreased cost to 125 minerals, 50 gas
Decreased build time
Increased range upgrade (Singularity Charge) by 1
High Templar:
Decreased energy cost of Hallucination to 100
Scout:
Increased Air to Air damage to 28
Base Armor of Scout changed from 1 to 0
Increased shields to 100 and hit points to 150
Increased cooldown rate of ground attack
Carrier:
Changed build cost to 350 minerals, and 250 gas
Increased hit points of Carrier to 300
Increased starting armor of Carrier to 4
Increased Interceptor shields and hitpoints to 40
Increased Interceptor damage to 6
Decreased Interceptor cost to 25
Arbiter:
Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 350 gas
Shuttle:
Increased build time
Reaver:
Increased build time
Templar Archives:
Increased cost to 150 minerals, 200 gas.
Citadel of Adun:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas.
Stargate:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 150 gas
Decreased build time
Robotics Facility:
Increased build time
Robotics Support Bay:
Increased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas
Observatory:
Decreased cost to 50 minerals, 100 gas
Forge:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals
Photon Cannon:
Decreased build time
Fleet Beacon:
Decreased cost of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade to 100 minerals, 100 gas
Decreased research time of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade
Shield Battery:
Increased starting energy to 100
Increased effective range of “Recharge Shields” ability
Zerg
+ Show Spoiler +
Overlord:
Increased speed bonus for "Pneumatized Carapace" upgrade
Decreased research time of "Ventral Sacs" upgrade
Scourge:
Increase hit points to 25
Hydralisk:
Increased build time
Queen:
Increased range of Broodling by 1
Increase energy cost of Parasite to 75
Decreased Parasite casting range to 12
Defiler:
Increased cost to 50 minerals, 150 gas
Hatchery:
Decreased the speed at which the Hatchery/Lair/Hive spawn new larva
Decreased build cost to 300 minerals
Increased build time
Sunken Colony:
Decreased cost of Sunken Colony upgrade to 50 minerals
Decreased build time
Increased attack rate of Sunken Colony
Increased damage to 40
Spore Colony:
Decreased build time
Changed damage type to normal
Greater Spire:
Increased build time
Patch 1.0.8 2001-05-18
Terran
+ Show Spoiler +
Valkyrie:
Damage increase to 6 per missile.
Acceleration and velocity increased slightly.
Build time decreased.
Science Facility:
Build time decreased.
Irradiate research cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas.
Yamato Cannon research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas.
Missile Turret:
Decreased cost to 75 minerals.
Factory:
Charon Missile Booster research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas.
Dropship:
Increased speed.
Goliath:
Increased ground attack range.
Battle Cruiser:
Build time decreased.
Supply cost decreased to 6.
Protoss
+ Show Spoiler +
Dragoon:
Build time increased.
Scout:
Decreased cost to 275 minerals, 125 gas.
Carrier:
Supply cost decreased to 6.
Templar:
Psi Storm Damage reduced.
Corsair:
Disruption Web spell duration decreased.
Zealot:
Shields decreased to 60 and hit points increased to 100.
Zerg
+ Show Spoiler +
Queen:
Decreased build cost to 100 minerals, 100 gas.
Ultralisk:
Supply cost decreased to 4.
Queen's Nest:
Spawn Broodling cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas.
Hydralisk Den:
Lurker Aspect cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas.
Hydralisk speed upgrade cost increased to 150 minerals, 150 gas.
Spawning Pool:
Increased build cost to 200 minerals
Sunken Colony:
Building armor increased to 2.
Hit points decreased to 300.
I obviously wasn't around at the time, but looking at how the metagame developed and comparing that to these balance changes it's obvious that the game would have been vastly different if it weren't for some really well thought out balance calls on the side of blizzard.
Everything from the ultralisk and carrier having their supply decreased + Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure that 8 supply carriers would have been unviable.
Photon Cannon:
Decreased build time - The Photon Cannons are already as slow as fuck to build, imagine how horrible it used to have been.
|
My bad, didn't realize there were such big patches :O
|
On September 20 2013 20:50 Birdie wrote:
My bad, didn't realize there were such big patches :O
The pathfinding made Brood War easier to balance though, since it was such a huge aspect of the game that all races had to struggle with. So in some subtle way the races had a lot more similarities than in SC2.
|
On September 20 2013 21:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 20:50 Birdie wrote:
My bad, didn't realize there were such big patches :O The pathfinding made Brood War easier to balance though, since it was such a huge aspect of the game that all races had to struggle with. So in some subtle way the races had a lot more similarities than in SC2.
Yes: this absolutely. Everything is ten times harder to balance in SC2 because everything happens in ALL CAPS. How easy was it to concentrate the fire of a maxed ground army in one spot in BW? How often did that happen? How useful would it have been, for that matter (given you'd be stuck and wide open to being outmanoeuvred)?. Now think about SC2. How often do you see a maxed deathball with almost every unit able to fire at once? 50% of games? More?
EDIT: I'd love to be proved wrong about the inability of SC2 to reward tactical play. So, ideas:
1. Make ground units slower when moving up ramps (and faster when moving down them?)
This actually leverages the tendency of units to clump, slowing down the whole army.
2. ???
|
On September 20 2013 21:39 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 21:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 20 2013 20:50 Birdie wrote:
My bad, didn't realize there were such big patches :O The pathfinding made Brood War easier to balance though, since it was such a huge aspect of the game that all races had to struggle with. So in some subtle way the races had a lot more similarities than in SC2. Yes: this absolutely. Everything is ten times harder to balance in SC2 because everything happens in ALL CAPS. How easy was it to concentrate the fire of a maxed ground army in one spot in BW? How often did that happen? How useful would it have been, for that matter (given you'd be stuck and wide open to being outmanoeuvred)?. Now think about SC2. How often do you see a maxed deathball with almost every unit able to fire at once? 50% of games? More?
What is amusing is that in sc2 maps with more turns and twists to get around allows for more flanks and careful army positioning.
The turns and twists will even get SC2 armys to travel in a konga line.
|
On September 20 2013 21:42 decemberscalm wrote:
The turns and twists will even get SC2 armys to travel in a konga line.
True, but the skill required to overcome that is "Don't be a complete moron a-moving across the whole map". It's not exactly difficult to right click on a series of intermediate points and keep your deathball nice and round.
|
@Umpteen
It already does reward tactical play. SC2 maps generally have plenty of chokes. 3 Base eco gets your 200/200 army up so quickly compared to BW even these chokes offer huge incentives to not attack into an enemy concave.
More fundamental issues are that the SC2 eco just doesn't reward taking more bases than you really need. If that was fixed then you still couldn't defend these bases due to defenders advantage and the need to intercept the enemy army to defend, sim city and powerful defensive units don't mean much in SC2 beyond a plantary fortress/nexus.
Z doesn't even factor in to even needed defense besides buying time, he has creep speed.
As for shift clicking around corners. Yeah it is extremely easy to circumvent. Yet we see konga lines in pro matches every now and than just like a good ole supply block. To err is human.
|
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.
Agreed.
Both attack delay and the way a unit moves (positioning) affects the way how a unit can be micro'd.
This is blatantly visible in Lane Pushing Games like Dota 2 and in the RTS it was based on - Warcraft III.
|
Your overall conclusions are sound, but your descriptions of how terrain, path finding, unit orientation and collision boxes work and interact in SC1 is just plain wrong.
Your analysis of how the tiles (or grids, as you call them) of the terrain interact with units is. well, just utterly wrong. Units do not "try to sit on top of a tile" as you claim. All that "bobbing around" of units is just because one collision box gets in the way of another.
And those pictures are just bad and totally improper to explain anything about the structural basics of pathfinding in BW.
Here's another picture, directly from SCMDraft (map editor), displaying the important aspects much better:
green: terrain tiles
grey: sub-tiles (these are the relevant ones for pathing; each tile is made up of 4x4 of them)
red: collision boxes of the units. For ground units (except workers with mining command) these are not allow to overlap under normal circumstances, and if they ever do, resolving that becomes highest priority action for the moving algorithm, before any other action. This is why worker drills can disrupt units from attacking.
greyed out areas: unwalkable sub-tiles, collision boxes of ground units are not allowed to overlap with these under normal circumstances, resolving terrain collision has priority even over resolving unit collision (although it is possible to transition unit collision into terrain collision, as demonstrated in the Blue Storm video).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x32pIHu.jpg)
As you can see from that picture alone, there is no difference at all between Dragoons, Vultures, Goliaths and Siege Tanks. they all have the exact same collision box and thus behave identical as far as pathfinding goes. So why does one need to micro them (and against them) differently? - Because of other differences like:
- unit orientation: vultures always point in a certain direction, to have them ready to fire one must make sure they face the direction of the target. That's why they work best with patrol micro (patrol basically gives them a direction order on top of an attack order), dragoons on the other hand have no orientation, so they are always ready to fire and can be microed by hold position. Tanks are kind of in between, in that they are basically two units in one, one chassis and one turret, each with an orientation of its own. The chassis is facing into the moving direction, but the turret can still rotate freely and stay locked on a target in reach, thus resulting in an overall unit behaviour that is closer to that of the dragoon than the vulture. Goliaths also feature a turret, but a less mobile one that can only rotate a small angle, thus requiring the whole unit to be aimed at a target to attack
- attack animation: A dragoon has to stand still for a while to "cough up" that lightball of his and giving it any new order before the projectile is launched will disrupt the attack, Vultures on the other hand fire instantly, if facing the target, and thus can keep moving constantly. Tanks and Goliaths also pretty much fire instantly.
- unit speed and acceleration: units don't just stop when ordered to do so, but have a short phase of deceleration. This is relevant when using fast firing, fast moving units like vultures, because it means that they can fire while still moving and just keep moving, when given another move command right after the attack (also important for muta and shuttle micro, for example)
- rate of attack: Goliaths pretty much fire one attack after another in rather short succession (not quite like Corsairs, but still...), whereas Vultures, Dragoons and Tanks have really long attack cooldowns, which is why the latter three are much better, or at least easier, to attack-move-micro.
- projectile type: Goliaths (vs. ground) and Tanks do not have projectiles, their shots hit almost instantly. Vultures and Dragoons (or Goliaths vs. air), however, fire projectiles that only apply damage once they hit the target. This means that their attacks can be dodged by "removing" the target, like loading it into a transport or bunker, it also means that they are more prone to land overkills, i.e. fire more projectiles at a target than would be required to kill it (tanks do this too, however, especially in siege mode.).
|
Quick hacks to meet the game deadline.
Two huge patches that completely changes the meta game.
Stop patching leaving it in a "broken" state.
Balanced by map makers.
Broodwar is the perfect storm.
|
On September 20 2013 23:02 forumtext wrote:
Quick hacks to meet the game deadline.
Two huge patches that completely changes the meta game.
Stop patching leaving it in a "broken" state.
Balanced by map makers.
Broodwar is the perfect storm.
Epic :D
|
On September 19 2013 16:03 Gaius Baltar wrote:
I miss these blogs.
In the early years of WoL, great analysis pieces like this were a regular part of the TL experience, but it's rare to see one these days. I always admired how much the authors cared about the future of the game, and how they hoped they could make SC2 just that much better through their words. But nobody really writes these anymore, and to me it reflects the loss of hope for the future of SC2 you see many places in the community now. Even this piece, as great as it is, avoided making suggestions to the game going forward. Still, thanks a lot to TM. Best design blog in ages.
Hoo rah. My sentiments exactly.
|
Poland3746 Posts
As much as I enjoyed the read I have to say you didn't quite deliver the punch. Whether by accident or by design bw on some levels offer superior depth compared to sc2 and frisbees are in no way less superior to baseball balls if they were created by messy accident.
The fun fact is that we needed sc2 to discover what makes bw so demanding game and what should be thanked for for it's beauty.
Yea it's crappy path finding but flying Frisbees are still more fun to watch
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
