|
On January 23 2017 03:13 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 03:10 imp42 wrote:On January 23 2017 02:29 Jealous wrote:
My vote is on not changing anything. why keep the "unit stuck on ramp, but only for one player on one side of the map" bug? or a bug where the lurker isn't able to burrow anymore? I realize there is a thin line and there might be border cases. This thread is to explore them. Because that is a map-specific bug; it would be better just to change the map than change the game, no? I have nothing against changing that ramp on FS at 12, for example. Maps are flexible, the game should remain static imo. Lurker not being able to burrow anymore - I haven't seen that one, but I'm willing to bet the Lurker doesn't burrow anymore because of something the human player did with the Lurker?
Yes, you're right about fixing map rather than game.
Probably the lurker issue is caused by previous commands too, as you suggest.
What's your take on the Valkyrie bullet sprite limit?
|
I would try the option of raising the spire limit. Doing away with it all together may change the game too much (destroy carrier play)?
|
in a weird way i kinda think the valk sprite bug is a good thing, i mean if u had 10+ valks without freezing, wouldnt they just completely dominate the air in tvz and tvt?
|
On January 23 2017 08:53 imp42 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 03:13 Jealous wrote:On January 23 2017 03:10 imp42 wrote:On January 23 2017 02:29 Jealous wrote:
My vote is on not changing anything. why keep the "unit stuck on ramp, but only for one player on one side of the map" bug? or a bug where the lurker isn't able to burrow anymore? I realize there is a thin line and there might be border cases. This thread is to explore them. Because that is a map-specific bug; it would be better just to change the map than change the game, no? I have nothing against changing that ramp on FS at 12, for example. Maps are flexible, the game should remain static imo. Lurker not being able to burrow anymore - I haven't seen that one, but I'm willing to bet the Lurker doesn't burrow anymore because of something the human player did with the Lurker? Yes, you're right about fixing map rather than game. Probably the lurker issue is caused by previous commands too, as you suggest. What's your take on the Valkyrie bullet sprite limit?
I think that changing it would affect balance, so I am against it.
|
1. Reaver attack bug
We all know that reavers have a tendency to walk into the attacking direction if you just use the attack command. I have been told that this tends to happen at certain directions/angles. Is anyone able to explain/confirm that. If it is directional then I think it should be classified as a bug whereas if it just happens generally then I guess you can consider that as a feature.
2. Siege tanks directions
I have read a post by scan that there are some directional advantages in the ranges of siege tank (can't find the thread on top of my head). I am not sure if that applies to other units but obviously this would impact siege tanks the most. I am neither a high level player nor a terran player myself so I am not sure how much implication it has in pro-level TVT. Again if the above is true that I would classify it as a bug. (maybe a minor one but still..)
|
* Air unit stacking
When you group air units with another unit that is far away, they will stack on 1 position.
This is probably the most important unintended feature in all of SC.
|
Croatia9497 Posts
On January 23 2017 20:16 sabas123 wrote:
* Air unit stacking
When you group air units with another unit that is far away, they will stack on 1 position.
This is probably the most important unintended feature in all of SC.
That was most definitely an intended feature in BW.
Its effects on the evolution of BW's strategy, however, were probably unintended.
|
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5.
|
On January 23 2017 21:49 Jae Zedong wrote:
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5.
But that's essential feature in PvT when you are doing shuttle reaver plays.
|
On January 23 2017 22:20 Zera wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 21:49 Jae Zedong wrote:
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5. But that's essential feature in PvT when you are doing shuttle reaver plays.
Still unfair though, especially in regard to starting positions. They could make it so that tanks that are facing the right way have a tiny hidden delay before firing that corresponds to tanks that are facing the wrong way. Would barely be noticeable and it would make it fair. And allow for reaver shuttle in PvT.
|
On January 23 2017 23:02 Jae Zedong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 22:20 Zera wrote:On January 23 2017 21:49 Jae Zedong wrote:
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5. But that's essential feature in PvT when you are doing shuttle reaver plays. Still unfair though, especially in regard to starting positions. They could make it so that tanks that are facing the right way have a tiny hidden delay before firing that corresponds to tanks that are facing the wrong way. Would barely be noticeable and it would make it fair. And allow for reaver shuttle in PvT.
Or maybe we can accept that sometimes positional play is a part of the game and players should adapt their play accordingly? Protoss already can't take their natural 3rd on FS with a clockwise Terran, and now you want the Tank turrets to be more balanced? Come on fam.
|
On January 24 2017 14:13 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 23:02 Jae Zedong wrote:On January 23 2017 22:20 Zera wrote:On January 23 2017 21:49 Jae Zedong wrote:
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5. But that's essential feature in PvT when you are doing shuttle reaver plays. Still unfair though, especially in regard to starting positions. They could make it so that tanks that are facing the right way have a tiny hidden delay before firing that corresponds to tanks that are facing the wrong way. Would barely be noticeable and it would make it fair. And allow for reaver shuttle in PvT. Or maybe we can accept that sometimes positional play is a part of the game and players should adapt their play accordingly? Protoss already can't take their natural 3rd on FS with a clockwise Terran, and now you want the Tank turrets to be more balanced? Come on fam.
Or maybe we can accept that random starting positions shouldn't have a large impact on unit behaviour? A terran who spawns at 5 on FS will have an unfair advantage as his tanks will face the right direction the entire game. If we combine all the added turn delays for a terran who spawned at 11 during a long match, I'm sure they could be counted in seconds. My change wouldn't reduce positional play at all. And I'm not sure why you're martyring for Protoss, as my change would effectively be a tiny nerf to siege tanks.
|
On January 24 2017 17:33 Jae Zedong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 14:13 Jealous wrote:On January 23 2017 23:02 Jae Zedong wrote:On January 23 2017 22:20 Zera wrote:On January 23 2017 21:49 Jae Zedong wrote:
Unfair feature:
Siege Tanks take different amounts of time to start firing depending on which direction they're facing. If an enemy moves into the range of a siege tank that's facing the "wrong" direction, the turret must turn around before firing. This is the only unit I know of that has a noticable turn delay.
This could potentially be game deciding, especially in TvT with starting positions 11 and 5. But that's essential feature in PvT when you are doing shuttle reaver plays. Still unfair though, especially in regard to starting positions. They could make it so that tanks that are facing the right way have a tiny hidden delay before firing that corresponds to tanks that are facing the wrong way. Would barely be noticeable and it would make it fair. And allow for reaver shuttle in PvT. Or maybe we can accept that sometimes positional play is a part of the game and players should adapt their play accordingly? Protoss already can't take their natural 3rd on FS with a clockwise Terran, and now you want the Tank turrets to be more balanced? Come on fam. Or maybe we can accept that random starting positions shouldn't have a large impact on unit behaviour? A terran who spawns at 5 on FS will have an unfair advantage as his tanks will face the right direction the entire game. If we combine all the added turn delays for a terran who spawned at 11 during a long match, I'm sure they could be counted in seconds. My change wouldn't reduce positional play at all. And I'm not sure why you're martyring for Protoss, as my change would effectively be a tiny nerf to siege tanks.
Because it does not matter in a larger picture. TvTs are not lost or won because tanks turrets took 0.1s to turn. This is just nitpicking.
|
Are you for real right now? Check the OP:
Let's assume we had the power to change anything in the game.
A "feature" is a behavior that:
- characterizes Brood War as a game
- may or may not work as originally intended
- may or may not be desired
- influences game play, potentially influences balance
The point of this thread is literally to list minor bugs and features that may or may not influence balance. And turret delay clearly has the potential to affect balance. If this thread had been titled LIST MAJOR FLAWS IN BROOD WAR, I wouldn't have posted it (and I don't believe there are any major flaws). I simply adhered to the rules of the thread.
Turret delay is clearly something that affects the game slightly and pros are aware of it. Will it decide a TvT? Maybe, maybe not. But we cannot be sure either way. And it does affect TvP as well.
|
On January 24 2017 19:03 Jae Zedong wrote:Are you for real right now? Check the OP: Show nested quote +Let's assume we had the power to change anything in the game.
A "feature" is a behavior that:
- characterizes Brood War as a game
- may or may not work as originally intended
- may or may not be desired
- influences game play, potentially influences balance The point of this thread is literally to list minor bugs and features that may or may not influence balance. And turret delay clearly has the potential to affect balance. If this thread had been titled LIST MAJOR FLAWS IN BROOD WAR, I wouldn't have posted it (and I don't believe there are any major flaws). I simply adhered to the rules of the thread. Turret delay is clearly something that affects the game slightly and pros are aware of it. Will it decide a TvT? Maybe, maybe not. But we cannot be sure either way. And it does affect TvP as well.
I still can not see the point, why would you want to change it  but let it be
|
On January 23 2017 20:23 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 20:16 sabas123 wrote:
* Air unit stacking
When you group air units with another unit that is far away, they will stack on 1 position.
This is probably the most important unintended feature in all of SC. [Air-unit-stacking] was most definitely an intended feature in BW.
How do we know that, though? Didn't air-unit-stacking not even become a thing until several years after BW came out? Liquipedia has it being discovered by Shark around 2006, with JulyZerg perfecting it soon afterwards.
Seems more like an unintended feature that just happened to work out well.
|
I doubt the air stacking was intended, and personally like I said some times I don't like it and I suspect that it led to fixating the early-midgame in Z matchups around it being used with mutas. It's a reason why archons are ineffective against mutalisks as an early counter, and I suspect it is one reason why 1 base openings in PvZ give a disadvantage to P : the switch to "only-FE" plays in PvZ did happen after discovering this exploit, and in my own experience it is true that needing to go corsair and then being so pressured to make more corsairs even not knowing the number of mutas because you can't counter effectively with archon or goons is an important weakness of 1base openings. It does weaken canons as well. Basically when you open 1 base as P, the early tech options and your accuracy with them are what can produce an advantage, but you are pulled into making dangerous gambles if you can't afford to defend mutas with an archon or goons so that you end up making corsairs if you are blind at all for a while about what Z produced ; now these are useless against hydras or lurks and you can lose your opening. So you play FE. Before I think you'd see Ps going strats such as zealot+archon or goons or a reaver on one base in variations allowing you to take your nat in different ways. And the repetition of muta openings vs T.
However I'm not really sure what "just removing it" would do to the game since I have been reading Z say that it is hard to beat terrans who micro well even with this. But I would sure like to see it. For the sake of strategic options in the early game, it is pretty important that the corsair is not your only option early on as P against Z, and making more corsairs the (almost) only followup if Z makes more mutalisks. And in ZvT, it was more fun to watch (or play..? I have played few) when mutalisks openings were not done most games.
|
^ But air-unit stacking has become part of the game over the past decade.
I think there'd be quite an uproar if it got taken out.
|
Croatia9497 Posts
On January 24 2017 21:17 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 20:23 2Pacalypse- wrote:On January 23 2017 20:16 sabas123 wrote:
* Air unit stacking
When you group air units with another unit that is far away, they will stack on 1 position.
This is probably the most important unintended feature in all of SC. [Air-unit-stacking] was most definitely an intended feature in BW. How do we know that, though? Didn't air-unit-stacking not even become a thing until several years after BW came out? Liquipedia has it being discovered by Shark around 2006, with JulyZerg perfecting it soon afterwards. Seems more like an unintended feature that just happened to work out well.
We know that by reading the BW's code. Air-unit-stacking is the same thing as ground-unit stacking. BW's units keep the formation as long as they're closer to each other than some set distance, and when they get further apart than that distance, they converge to one location. Also known as  Magic Boxes. This is a very intended feature in BW's engine since the developers even went to trouble of making that distance different for ground and air units.
But as I said, the effect that these features had on BW's strategy were probably unforeseen by developers, and indeed, by players themselves for quite some time. This doesn't make the initial decision to put these mechanics into the game any less intended though. This is the beauty of BW after all.
|
I had this so much as of late and it's so annoying.
When an scv stands somewhere and you order him to build a depot, and you place this depot on top of that scv, it won't move a bit. You have to move that scv and then re-order him to build the depot, otherwise it's "stuck" and won't do a thing.
It's definitely a bug
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
