EPTCarrier Micro - Page 12
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Xerxes Wrath
48 Posts
| ||
|
nebula.
Sweden1431 Posts
| ||
|
Decendos
Germany1341 Posts
keep going!  | ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
On September 17 2012 20:56 Plexa wrote: Moved to HotS to get more attention Lolled. In my mind it goes something like this Tyler: "Imma write a blog" Plexa: "No, it should be a discussion topic" Tyler: "But I..." Plexy "F*** you, it´s a discussion topic now" | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Right now, Protoss still lacks the proper air support and the tempest is meh. Carriers with their micro tricks would be much more sufficient. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:39 Don.681 wrote: In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL. The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game. I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in. So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job. I think the best way to convince Blizzard to do this is for some of the Galaxy Editor experts here in TL to try and code this into the game via the Triggers. Without breaking/hacking/re-programming the engine. This should get Blizzard's attention. Blizzard missed the mark with a lot subtleties when it came to path finding and the A.I. in the game. Yes, it's a completely new engine. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Maybe you could do some more writing and showing for blizzard to see Iam talking about other stuff from broodwar. Shoot while moving is what i have in mind, but more things also probably iam not sure as of now. Now is the time to change the game drastically, it would Only be for the better except the balance. But the balance arrives later and in the meanwhile makes the game better. And more FUN, more EXCITING. Maybe its offtopic, i dont know where to write this really. Or maybe its ontopic. | ||
|
baikor
Bulgaria28 Posts
| ||
|
valaki
Hungary2476 Posts
| ||
|
pNRG
United States333 Posts
On September 17 2012 22:44 valaki wrote: I don't think blizz devs (the current ones) are even aware of these mechanics. This. While Tyler explained the difference very well, I don't think the mechanics were left out or changed in SC2 as a concious effort - I just think these amazing micro moves of SC1/BW were never really a scripted game design but more of a nuance of the engine/mechanics. While I don't think these nerfs were fully intentional, it would be nice to see carriers viable and have the ability to be micro'd. | ||
|
Wout
Netherlands76 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
| ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
Even until recently I recall in almost all late-game BW PvT games with carriers (in SPL/OSL and also MSL) the commentators always caught how the P player "attacked his own nexus and/or carrier" to get the interceptors ready for the incoming battle. Sounds silly without knowing how the deployment mechanics work, but makes perfect sense knowing the reason why. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On September 17 2012 22:58 OpticalShot wrote: Great video, really shows everyone how it worked before (in BW). Even until recently I recall in almost all late-game BW PvT games with carriers (in SPL/OSL and also MSL) the commentators always caught how the P player "attacked his own nexus and/or carrier" to get the interceptors ready for the incoming battle. Sounds silly without knowing how the deployment mechanics work, but makes perfect sense knowing the reason why. People sometimes do that now when they go Voidrays, they'll attack rocks or own units to maintain charge. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided. I've been trying to explain how "taxing" mechanics can add to strategic and tactical depth. You've done it perfectly here. | ||
|
YourGoodFriend
United States2197 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:39 Don.681 wrote: In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL. The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game. I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in. So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job. That argument can be made for some other units, but it's definitely not the case with the Carrier. The changes made to the Carrier have nothing to do with the standard unit behavior or pathing algorithms. It had to be a deliberate design choice to make Interceptors some sort of a unique pseudo-unit that doesn't have the standard unit behavior. The fact that they even introduced the upgrade to boost Interceptor launch speed is an evidence enough that they were very much aware of what they were doing. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more difficult to implement the Carrier as it is now than it was to strictly follow the "container" unit pattern. Moreover, even though much of unit behavior in BW was accidental, the game owes much of its fame and success to these "accidents". That should be a reason enough to not only make an effort to reproduce them with as much fidelity as possible, but also to consider actively designing other/new units with similar new control tricks in mind. The latter has been notably absent from SC2 development so far, and that's much more worrisome than specific units not having the exact same behavior they did in BW. The fault here is not with the engine and programming end, the fault is with the design philosophy that streamlines units into very rigid and specific roles, making them purely a strategic choice rather than a tool to execute strategies with. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
Trotim
Germany95 Posts
| ||
|
niladorus
Greece116 Posts
| ||
| ||
