Carrier Micro - Page 7

On September 17 2012 10:35 Falling wrote:

I actually don't get what 'uninituitive' actually means except that it's a label that Blizzard uses for things they don't like. What makes something "unintuitive" really? If a set of actions creates certain unit behaviour, such as carrier micro, then that is what players can expect.

Thing is is, even if it is 'uninituitive' it doesn't even touch true newbs that don't even know how to a-move. (Yes they do exists.) They can happily right click around their massive fleet of carriers that took them 40 minutes to build from 1 stargate with 20 workers. It doesn't touch their world so 'unintuitive' doesn't even come into play. Beyond that, a competent and competitive player learns that a certain set of actions will create a desired unit response and they'll use it if they want to.

I understand this isn't your argument, but it's one that I've understood less and less.

On September 17 2012 11:27 MavercK wrote:
Blizzard seems to hate invisibile mechanics that aren't immediately obvious. this is one of them. i'd be very suprised if they implemented anything like this.

i'd like to thank Nony however, as this video will be incredibly useful to me. <3

On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.

It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).

This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.

Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.

The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).

Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).

In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.

The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).

This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas revolving around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.

On September 17 2012 12:08 Aveng3r wrote:

So your saying that it isnt possible for a patch to implement some of the BW characteristics of the carrier into sc2? ive often wondered why none of the bw carrier attributes where ever applied to the sc2 carrier in a patch (or even just a balance test) to see if the carrier couldnt be fixed up a little

On September 17 2012 12:12 Roe wrote:

That is what he's saying, though I wonder how complex the coding is, that it's this much of a non-answer to change it for the carrier alone. I know some programs have millions of lines of code, but...i dont know, it seems like it should be do-able with blizzard.

On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote:
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).