|
On December 10 2022 23:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2022 19:45 Harris1st wrote:
There were a bunch of games that tried to duplicate SC2 and they all were kinda "clunky" and more like WC3 microwise or even worse. Hope they will make unit micormanagement and combat more fluid like SC2.
The art style looks more like a WC3 though. Not gonna lie for me War3 has the best micro of all RTS and way better than SC2.
WC3 was a much better game than SC2 overall. I have countless of hours played in WC3 and uninstalled SC2 after 2 hours never to touch it again. Wasn't even interested enough to finish the campaign. Unit collision in SC2 is simply atrocious and art direction is also pretty bad which made it a pain for me to get into.
|
On January 19 2023 18:44 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 23:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 08 2022 19:45 Harris1st wrote:
There were a bunch of games that tried to duplicate SC2 and they all were kinda "clunky" and more like WC3 microwise or even worse. Hope they will make unit micormanagement and combat more fluid like SC2.
The art style looks more like a WC3 though. Not gonna lie for me War3 has the best micro of all RTS and way better than SC2. WC3 was a much better game than SC2 overall. I have countless of hours played in WC3 and uninstalled SC2 after 2 hours never to touch it again. Wasn't even interested enough to finish the campaign. Unit collision in SC2 is simply atrocious and art direction is also pretty bad which made it a pain for me to get into.
And I feel the exact opposite. In terms of being an RTS, WC3 was a failed experiment; one whose greatest contribution to the world of esports was bringing about MoBA games, the logical conclusion of where Warcraft 3's gameplay advances pushed the genre.
Starcraft 2 is the traditional macro RTS perfected from a gameplay engine perspective. It's fast, it's precise, battles are swung in an instant with careful moves and positioning.
In a lot of ways, the precision of SC2's engine becomes one of its greatest weaknesses long term since it becomes much easier to reach the skill cap of the game compared to its predecessor Starcraft: Brood War, which makes top tier gameplay more predictable.
Warcraft 3 brought some amazing things to the RTS genre but the actual package of Warcraft 3 itself wasn't fun to play online. This is evidenced by how much larger Warcraft 3's Custom Maps scene was vs its actual ladder. The tools given over to the community produced a TON of amazing games, many of which created or revolutionized entire genres of games, but the actual game of Warcraft 3 never caught on the way that Starcraft 2 did as an esport for a reason.
|
It's good that he mentioned units don't clump together as much as SC2 ones do.
|
Even though I was totally a SC:BW player, I played a lot more War3 after it came out (ladder 1v1 mostly) than I played SC2, and despite having a shot at being quite good at SC2 early on etc. War3 was more fun and I have better memories of it now. It's not fair to say War3 wasn't fun to play online, because the truth is a lot of people played it up until SC2 came out and then a lot of people were still playing it after, there was a pro scene which not a lot of game can claim to have, and actually when compared to SC:BW it was the first RTS to start up a actual pro scene in the West before SC2 did, SC:BW was mostly korea and started the whole pro scene thing, very few players in the West earned something from some tourneys but War3 had regular sponsored pros in for example EU countries for the first time or in much larger proportion.
Anyway opinions will vary but I find there are a lot of gameplay aspects that War3 do better than SC2. It's more of a tactics and micro game rather than strategy and macro, and it's not perfect, but great and very original. SC2's engine was a gripe from the very beginning as it dumbs down the fundamentals of tactics immediately, enforced also by the unit design (mostly hard counters, hard crowdcontrol, aoe vs autoclump, deathballs, lack of defender advantage, vaporizing of workers in seconds, terrible terrible damage all the time etc). Also completely agree about War3 art direction being better, in all aspects (story, graphics style, sound, music, menus ; though I'd say for example a lot of SC2's graphics are pretty good or better than pretty good, still loss of style overall). Also remember the success of SC2 western pro scene as it started was largely due to actiblizzard heavily investing immediately and continuously (world of warcraft money).
|
On January 19 2023 18:44 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 23:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 08 2022 19:45 Harris1st wrote:
There were a bunch of games that tried to duplicate SC2 and they all were kinda "clunky" and more like WC3 microwise or even worse. Hope they will make unit micormanagement and combat more fluid like SC2.
The art style looks more like a WC3 though. Not gonna lie for me War3 has the best micro of all RTS and way better than SC2. WC3 was a much better game than SC2 overall. I have countless of hours played in WC3 and uninstalled SC2 after 2 hours never to touch it again. Wasn't even interested enough to finish the campaign. Unit collision in SC2 is simply atrocious and art direction is also pretty bad which made it a pain for me to get into.
WC3 is an amazing single player game with a brilliant story, voice acting, and level pacing.
As a competitive RTS though? Compared to SC2?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion because they're both great games, but they aren't even in the same universe, in any way shape or form. Terrible economy, terrible balance, limited micro potential, it functions more like a MOBA where units follow your hero around vs. an RTS.
Giving SC2 two hours then putting it down is pretty much you saying you didn't even give it a chance at all. The campaign falls short on storyline (especially compared to BW and WC3) but all 3 were extremely fun and challenging. I didn't let the stupid Kerrigan/Jimmy love affair ruin 3 expansions worth of content for me lol
Warcraft 3 brought some amazing things to the RTS genre but the actual package of Warcraft 3 itself wasn't fun to play online. This is evidenced by how much larger Warcraft 3's Custom Maps scene was vs its actual ladder. The tools given over to the community produced a TON of amazing games, many of which created or revolutionized entire genres of games, but the actual game of Warcraft 3 never caught on the way that Starcraft 2 did as an esport for a reason.
Perfectly worded, WC3 was an amazing game but a flop as a Esport, SC2 and BW streams/tournaments are still around while WC3 aren't for a reason.
|
WC3 had been staying up notably in China for longer and the remaster was terrible lacking basic features so yeah. I don't understand why you'd think War3 has comparatively limited micro potential, makes no sense to me, everyone was saying it was at the very least comparable to BW and I don't think there's an argument for SC2 having better micro than BW other than the interface being easier to use. I think War3 pushed the micro potential further while there's less need for multitasking so the overall style is different but yeah, at least as good micro as BW. Anyway the balance is a bit lacking and I'd say the strategy potential is limited (expansion timings, unit compositions, openings and starting hero choices and maybe choice of number of heroes), but not the micro and tactics potential, quite the opposite, and that is definitely thanks in part to the high quality engine. Also the economic game is interesting although less large scale, voluntarily (you choose how and when to delay your growth).
|
On January 19 2023 19:20 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 18:44 Manit0u wrote:On December 10 2022 23:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 08 2022 19:45 Harris1st wrote:
There were a bunch of games that tried to duplicate SC2 and they all were kinda "clunky" and more like WC3 microwise or even worse. Hope they will make unit micormanagement and combat more fluid like SC2.
The art style looks more like a WC3 though. Not gonna lie for me War3 has the best micro of all RTS and way better than SC2. WC3 was a much better game than SC2 overall. I have countless of hours played in WC3 and uninstalled SC2 after 2 hours never to touch it again. Wasn't even interested enough to finish the campaign. Unit collision in SC2 is simply atrocious and art direction is also pretty bad which made it a pain for me to get into. And I feel the exact opposite. In terms of being an RTS, WC3 was a failed experiment; one whose greatest contribution to the world of esports was bringing about MoBA games, the logical conclusion of where Warcraft 3's gameplay advances pushed the genre. Starcraft 2 is the traditional macro RTS perfected from a gameplay engine perspective. It's fast, it's precise, battles are swung in an instant with careful moves and positioning. In a lot of ways, the precision of SC2's engine becomes one of its greatest weaknesses long term since it becomes much easier to reach the skill cap of the game compared to its predecessor Starcraft: Brood War, which makes top tier gameplay more predictable. Warcraft 3 brought some amazing things to the RTS genre but the actual package of Warcraft 3 itself wasn't fun to play online. This is evidenced by how much larger Warcraft 3's Custom Maps scene was vs its actual ladder. The tools given over to the community produced a TON of amazing games, many of which created or revolutionized entire genres of games, but the actual game of Warcraft 3 never caught on the way that Starcraft 2 did as an esport for a reason.
Custom games are always bigger than 1vs1 ladder. This was the case in StarCraft 1, too.
Team games are bigger in Quake than 1vs1, and so on. This is not a good argument against a game. Even Dota2, a custom game map, now has custom games.
WarCraft III was a massive success and gained a dedicated fanbase of people who played it for years, getting more and more skilled, proving that it had depth. It was the second RTS game that people could play professionally for years, the first being StarCraft.
|
cool interview although I have to admit I have absolutely 0 idea who Neuro is, any alternate ID? Is he somewhat new from LotV? (I havent touched sc2 since the lotv beta, I assume when he says Starcraft he means sc2).
Overall it looks very sc2-like art wise, which is meh to me, and I hope we dont go deathball vs deathball or battle ending super quickly. I m biased to bw/wc3 battle duration. On the plus side, it looks like the dev put a lot of care in this and seem to truly want to make a good experience for most people so let s see how it goes, few months left to the beta 
|
On January 20 2023 00:47 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2023 18:44 Manit0u wrote:On December 10 2022 23:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 08 2022 19:45 Harris1st wrote:
There were a bunch of games that tried to duplicate SC2 and they all were kinda "clunky" and more like WC3 microwise or even worse. Hope they will make unit micormanagement and combat more fluid like SC2.
The art style looks more like a WC3 though. Not gonna lie for me War3 has the best micro of all RTS and way better than SC2. WC3 was a much better game than SC2 overall. I have countless of hours played in WC3 and uninstalled SC2 after 2 hours never to touch it again. Wasn't even interested enough to finish the campaign. Unit collision in SC2 is simply atrocious and art direction is also pretty bad which made it a pain for me to get into. WC3 is an amazing single player game with a brilliant story, voice acting, and level pacing. As a competitive RTS though? Compared to SC2? Everyone is entitled to their opinion because they're both great games, but they aren't even in the same universe, in any way shape or form. Terrible economy, terrible balance, limited micro potential, it functions more like a MOBA where units follow your hero around vs. an RTS. Giving SC2 two hours then putting it down is pretty much you saying you didn't even give it a chance at all. The campaign falls short on storyline (especially compared to BW and WC3) but all 3 were extremely fun and challenging. I didn't let the stupid Kerrigan/Jimmy love affair ruin 3 expansions worth of content for me lol Show nested quote +Warcraft 3 brought some amazing things to the RTS genre but the actual package of Warcraft 3 itself wasn't fun to play online. This is evidenced by how much larger Warcraft 3's Custom Maps scene was vs its actual ladder. The tools given over to the community produced a TON of amazing games, many of which created or revolutionized entire genres of games, but the actual game of Warcraft 3 never caught on the way that Starcraft 2 did as an esport for a reason. Perfectly worded, WC3 was an amazing game but a flop as a Esport, SC2 and BW streams/tournaments are still around while WC3 aren't for a reason.
I got to grand master (top 200 in Europe), won vs professional players on ladder, and I also won some minor online tournaments, and I prefer WarCraft III over StarCraft 2. Furthermore, I could tell that the game wasn't for me very early , but I still "gave it a chance", which was a waste of time.
Sometimes people can tell when something isn't for them after just two hours.
Do you really think this guy would have enjoyed it had he spent the time to learn it, like I did?
Starcraft 2 is the traditional macro RTS perfected from a gameplay engine perspective. It's fast, it's precise, battles are swung in an instant with careful moves and positioning.
I disagree. I dislike the engine of StarCraft 2. I dislike how units move, and how they clump.
|
On January 20 2023 02:01 WGT-Baal wrote:cool interview although I have to admit I have absolutely 0 idea who Neuro is, any alternate ID? Is he somewhat new from LotV? (I havent touched sc2 since the lotv beta, I assume when he says Starcraft he means sc2). Overall it looks very sc2-like art wise, which is meh to me, and I hope we dont go deathball vs deathball or battle ending super quickly. I m biased to bw/wc3 battle duration. On the plus side, it looks like the dev put a lot of care in this and seem to truly want to make a good experience for most people so let s see how it goes, few months left to the beta
He's a pretty popular steamer, that doesn't stream as much SC2 content anymore, but made waves on reddit due to his laidback chill attitude about online competition and getting better.
I believe he played in some of the ESL Online cups but that's as far as he got in terms of being a competitive pro.
|
I disagree. I dislike the engine of StarCraft 2. I dislike how units move, and how they clump.
This isn't something you can agree or disagree about.
From a technical perspective, SC2's engine is light years beyond what other games are using, including Warcraft 3.
The reason units "clump" in SC2 is because the game's engine is able to organize space to a much more precise degree than Warcraft 3 is capable of. Units have a natural tendency to clump together when ordered to a single specific pixel on the map, which is why flying units are able to stack in both games but ground units cannot and why flying units in Brood War naturally would clump up when ordered to move this way.
Ground units spread out naturally and disobey movement orders because their hitboxes clip each other and create pathing errors. This doesn't happen in SC2, because SC2's engine is more advanced.
Now you're free to dislike how this actually plays all you want, but when I say that SC2 is the macro RTS perfected from a technical gameplay standpoint this is what I am talking about. It is the most technically precise and advanced RTS on the market, to a degree that I don't think we're going to see another game that has more precision in the genre.
I've played games that have come out considerably later than SC2 that don't have as crisp and responsive of movement as SC2 does.
I've already expressed how at the top level this level of precision might actually be detrimental to the game's level of competition because you're able to hit the actual skill cap in SC2 in a way that you can't in Starcraft Brood War because the game's engine is so limited that more onus is on the player to compensate for it. You can even find this "fighting with the game" fun, but plenty of players don't.
I played Warcraft 3 for years, and Brood War on and off for 10 years before SC2 came out. I can't go back to playing them because I find myself unable to tolerate fighting with the game engine to get my units to do what I want them to do, after years of playing with SC2.
That is what SC2 being the most technically advanced RTS means.
|
On January 20 2023 02:53 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +
I disagree. I dislike the engine of StarCraft 2. I dislike how units move, and how they clump.
This isn't something you can agree or disagree about. From a technical perspective, SC2's engine is light years beyond what other games are using, including Warcraft 3.
You said "gameplay engine". You specifically mentioned gameplay.
Is it well programmed and optimised? Yeah, sure, but it's a well programmed turd to me. It efficiently and cleanly implements features that I don't enjoy.
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
|
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games.
In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it.
In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage.
It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will.
|
On January 20 2023 03:52 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games. In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it. In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage. It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will.
I didn't say the engines behave the same way or that they present the same challenge to the player. I said they both have things you want to do, that are difficult to do, because of how units behave. Unit behaviour in the SC2 engine makes spread out formations difficult.
It is more difficult to keep units spread out in SC2 than it is in BW. As this is a computer game that's supposed to be challenging, it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing inherently, but it's a challenge that I don't enjoy.
I don't like the unit behaviour in SC2.
|
On January 20 2023 03:56 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 03:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games. In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it. In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage. It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will. I didn't say the engines behave the same way or that they present the same challenge to the player. I said they both have things you want to do, that are difficult to do, because of how units behave. Unit behaviour in the SC2 engine makes spread out formations difficult. It is more difficult to keep units spread out in SC2 than it is in BW. As this is a computer game that's supposed to be challenging, it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing inherently, but it's a challenge that I don't enjoy. I don't like the unit behaviour in SC2.
And in previous games, the "difficult thing to do" was basic like moving as a unit in a single direction.
You're not going to compare splitting up units to avoid splash vs basic unit movement and call them the same thing. They're not.
The difference is important because one doesn't feel nearly as frustrating as the other. One feels like you're fighting the game engine just to get basic things done, the other feels like if you're not careful and on your game that half of your army dies.
They both can be frustrating, but the reasoning for why is very important and is the core of why I no longer have any fun playing BW or WC3 the way I once did.
|
On January 20 2023 04:51 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 03:56 vOdToasT wrote:On January 20 2023 03:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games. In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it. In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage. It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will. I didn't say the engines behave the same way or that they present the same challenge to the player. I said they both have things you want to do, that are difficult to do, because of how units behave. Unit behaviour in the SC2 engine makes spread out formations difficult. It is more difficult to keep units spread out in SC2 than it is in BW. As this is a computer game that's supposed to be challenging, it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing inherently, but it's a challenge that I don't enjoy. I don't like the unit behaviour in SC2. And in previous games, the "difficult thing to do" was basic like moving as a unit in a single direction. You're not going to compare splitting up units to avoid splash vs basic unit movement and call them the same thing. They're not. The difference is important because one doesn't feel nearly as frustrating as the other. One feels like you're fighting the game engine just to get basic things done, the other feels like if you're not careful and on your game that half of your army dies. They both can be frustrating, but the reasoning for why is very important and is the core of why I no longer have any fun playing BW or WC3 the way I once did.
Not trying to be rude, but I feel like you are projecting what you feel is annoying as the one-and-only truth onto anybody else. It sounds to me like toast experiences the challenges of SC2 as more annoying while you experience the challenges of BW as more annoying. This is obviously up to taste, there is no right or wrong imho.
However, there are implications when it comes to gameplay as a whole. Yes SC2 is more responsive but some things make the game objectively worse than it could be and clumping is one of them. The same way BW would be better if dragoons didn't glitch so much. Technically "perfect" doesn't mean good for the gameplay and that's important. Another important example would be defenders advantage. Suboptimal unit movement makes defenders advantage bigger in most cases. It's one of the main reasons why defenders advantage is so much weaker in SC2 compared to BW, which in turn leads to deathball movement because you can't defend an expo with just a handball of unit long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
You already admitted this so this isn't really a point of contention. I just wanted to put this out because I felt in the above conversation personal preference for "feeling" was being conflated with how the gameplay is impacted by the engine.
|
Yes SC2 is more responsive but some things make the game objectively worse than it could be and clumping is one of them.
Do you consider clumping up as the core issue itself? Or is the issue you are thinking of that it means army-sizes scale too well as they can deal too much damage in fights?
|
On January 20 2023 05:25 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 04:51 Vindicare605 wrote:On January 20 2023 03:56 vOdToasT wrote:On January 20 2023 03:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games. In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it. In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage. It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will. I didn't say the engines behave the same way or that they present the same challenge to the player. I said they both have things you want to do, that are difficult to do, because of how units behave. Unit behaviour in the SC2 engine makes spread out formations difficult. It is more difficult to keep units spread out in SC2 than it is in BW. As this is a computer game that's supposed to be challenging, it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing inherently, but it's a challenge that I don't enjoy. I don't like the unit behaviour in SC2. And in previous games, the "difficult thing to do" was basic like moving as a unit in a single direction. You're not going to compare splitting up units to avoid splash vs basic unit movement and call them the same thing. They're not. The difference is important because one doesn't feel nearly as frustrating as the other. One feels like you're fighting the game engine just to get basic things done, the other feels like if you're not careful and on your game that half of your army dies. They both can be frustrating, but the reasoning for why is very important and is the core of why I no longer have any fun playing BW or WC3 the way I once did. Not trying to be rude, but I feel like you are projecting what you feel is annoying as the one-and-only truth onto anybody else. It sounds to me like toast experiences the challenges of SC2 as more annoying while you experience the challenges of BW as more annoying. This is obviously up to taste, there is no right or wrong imho. However, there are implications when it comes to gameplay as a whole. Yes SC2 is more responsive but some things make the game objectively worse than it could be and clumping is one of them. The same way BW would be better if dragoons didn't glitch so much. Technically "perfect" doesn't mean good for the gameplay and that's important. Another important example would be defenders advantage. Suboptimal unit movement makes defenders advantage bigger in most cases. It's one of the main reasons why defenders advantage is so much weaker in SC2 compared to BW, which in turn leads to deathball movement because you can't defend an expo with just a handball of unit long enough for reinforcements to arrive. You already admitted this so this isn't really a point of contention. I just wanted to put this out because I felt in the above conversation personal preference for "feeling" was being conflated with how the gameplay is impacted by the engine.
What is objectively true is that from a technical standpoint, what is happening when a Dragoon glitches out and doesn't path where you tell it to, is different from when a Group of Marines gets pelted by a Siege Tank and take huge casualties because they are clumped together.
One is an engine limitation, and the other is a group of units going EXACTLY where you tell them to go. They are not the same thing.
I've never projected my "feelings" onto anyone except for myself when I say that one feels more frustrating than the other, although it doesn't take much searching online to find plenty of examples of players that feel exactly how I do, but that's beside the point.
I'm not projecting my feelings onto anything, I'm merely explaining how the interactions are fundamentally different. How you feel about them is up to you.
|
On January 20 2023 05:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Yes SC2 is more responsive but some things make the game objectively worse than it could be and clumping is one of them. Do you consider clumping up as the core issue itself? Or is the issue you are thinking of that it means army-sizes scale too well as they can deal too much damage in fights?
Hm, hard to say because it's intertwined. This sort of clumping will always be an issue as long as AoE is in the game and I'm not sure removing all AoE from the game would be a good solution. Obviously, the amount of aoe, dps and smart attack pattern exacerbate the issue but it would still be a problem with BW's skills and the rest of its unit behavior imho. It also goes into the opposite direction as well. Clumping up tighter actually increases dps output significantly because more units start to shoot/attack at the same time.
On January 20 2023 06:17 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2023 05:25 Miragee wrote:On January 20 2023 04:51 Vindicare605 wrote:On January 20 2023 03:56 vOdToasT wrote:On January 20 2023 03:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
As for "fighting the game to get your units to do what you want", SC2 has this, too. Keeping a spread out formation is very difficult and APM intensive, because any attempt to spread out your units while constantly moving them merely results in smaller clumps being formed, unless you really micro manage your units at a very small level.
What's happening here is fundamentally different than what would happen in previous games. In SC2, units naturally clump because every unit wants to take the most direct path to the target point you've selected for a group of them, unless you tell them specifically not to. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that SC2 has very powerful splash units that, thanks to the game's engine are smart enough to not over fire on a target and thus distribute their damage evenly over a large group of enemies in a target area. This is a VERY different dynamic than what happens when you want to get your Dragoon to shoot a Spider Mine that's right in front of it without the Dragoon killing itself on it. In SC:BW it's a chore to simply get all of your units to travel in the same direction as each other, the units are incapable of traveling together in a straight line because their pathing is so clunky and their hitbox collision is so buggy, in SC2, because of strong enemy splash options you want to micro manage your units to spread out into sup optimal attack paths in order to mitigate damage. It's not the same thing, you're not fighting the engine, you're countering the presence of enemy units with sub optimal pathing. Your units respond EXACTLY the way you tell them to in SC2, it's simply a manner of counter design that if you don't give them specific orders to NOT march into splash damage that they will. I didn't say the engines behave the same way or that they present the same challenge to the player. I said they both have things you want to do, that are difficult to do, because of how units behave. Unit behaviour in the SC2 engine makes spread out formations difficult. It is more difficult to keep units spread out in SC2 than it is in BW. As this is a computer game that's supposed to be challenging, it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing inherently, but it's a challenge that I don't enjoy. I don't like the unit behaviour in SC2. And in previous games, the "difficult thing to do" was basic like moving as a unit in a single direction. You're not going to compare splitting up units to avoid splash vs basic unit movement and call them the same thing. They're not. The difference is important because one doesn't feel nearly as frustrating as the other. One feels like you're fighting the game engine just to get basic things done, the other feels like if you're not careful and on your game that half of your army dies. They both can be frustrating, but the reasoning for why is very important and is the core of why I no longer have any fun playing BW or WC3 the way I once did. Not trying to be rude, but I feel like you are projecting what you feel is annoying as the one-and-only truth onto anybody else. It sounds to me like toast experiences the challenges of SC2 as more annoying while you experience the challenges of BW as more annoying. This is obviously up to taste, there is no right or wrong imho. However, there are implications when it comes to gameplay as a whole. Yes SC2 is more responsive but some things make the game objectively worse than it could be and clumping is one of them. The same way BW would be better if dragoons didn't glitch so much. Technically "perfect" doesn't mean good for the gameplay and that's important. Another important example would be defenders advantage. Suboptimal unit movement makes defenders advantage bigger in most cases. It's one of the main reasons why defenders advantage is so much weaker in SC2 compared to BW, which in turn leads to deathball movement because you can't defend an expo with just a handball of unit long enough for reinforcements to arrive. You already admitted this so this isn't really a point of contention. I just wanted to put this out because I felt in the above conversation personal preference for "feeling" was being conflated with how the gameplay is impacted by the engine. What is objectively true is that from a technical standpoint, what is happening when a Dragoon glitches out and doesn't path where you tell it to, is different from when a Group of Marines gets pelted by a Siege Tank and take huge casualties because they are clumped together. One is an engine limitation, and the other is a group of units going EXACTLY where you tell them to go. They are not the same thing. I've never projected my "feelings" onto anyone except for myself when I say that one feels more frustrating than the other, although it doesn't take much searching online to find plenty of examples of players that feel exactly how I do, but that's beside the point. I'm not projecting my feelings onto anything, I'm merely explaining how the interactions are fundamentally different. How you feel about them is up to you.
Maybe I misunderstood then because there's a language barrier. But you said: "The difference is important because one doesn't feel nearly as frustrating as the other.", which I considered a factual statement by you. As in, everyone feels this way.
Apart from that I would argue they are more similar than you think. I suppose the major difference is that in BW's case it's technical limitation while in SC2 it's a design choice. Is this what you are getting at? If so, it doesn't matter that much if you are trying to argue about the impact on gameplay. In the end, in neither case the units are doing what you want or tell them to. You give them a command and they react however "smart" the engine is. What you are describing is completely abitrary because there could as well be an option to let the units move keeping the current formation at the end of movement for example. There are a lot of options to solve the movement issues in BW but simply making the most smooth, responsive (aka "technically perfect") movement you can is not necessarily going to lead to the best possible outcome on its own. There is more to it and the issues SC2 introduced shows.
|
On the clumping issue I can also add that for me it was a very odd design choice. While it does look and feel good for the zerg (and makes sense for them) it was really weird for other races. I have no idea why they simply didn't give protoss and terran units larger collision size or other proximity limiters (surely something achievable with engine this advanced).
It's also pretty bad from the spectator perspective as all you see is just huge blobs of units that are being thrown at each other and blown apart.
I don't really see a reason why even big centerpiece units should be clumping so much together:
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IvgyoyzuAvQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
Still, comparing it to WC3 is kind of pointless because both of those games have different focus and scale. If you want to compare apples to apples you can go with something like Supreme Commander series or Tiberium Wars, both of which are heavy on macro, you produce even more units than in SC2, have responsive engine but no unit clumping and stronger visual identity.
You may berate me for dropping SC2 after just 2 hours but I've played A LOT of RTS games in my life, starting as far back as WarCraft 1 on 3.5'' disks. I don't need to spend 100 hours on a game to know if I want to sink more time into it. SC2 looked sus to me even before it was released as I was watching the streams (unit clumping, general art direction, more pew pew instead of boom boom etc.) and when I played it myself for a few hours I've decided it's simply not worth my time to invest into as it didn't get me excited in any way shape or form. It wasn't fun to watch, it wasn't fun to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
