|
On September 17 2012 10:35 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:22 Geos13 wrote:On September 17 2012 09:45 Falling wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote:
I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally. I don't think so. From the beginning they should have been (I imagine they were) looking at what made BW successful as a competitive game. Learn from even the accidents and include it intentionally. However, for some reason, they never picked up on the importance of these skilled masteries that made it such an awesome game for competitors and spectators alike. It doesn't really matter if a lot of things were developed from bugs. There's no reason to not have things like carrier micro, moving-shot, proper ground magic boxing, and maybe even ways to bug units over top of mineral lines/ buildings. There are so many of these cool, visual things that BW developed that SC2 seems to have completely left behind. Taking what was accidental and including it purposefully from the beginning would have been fine. Nothing to do with being slapped in the face professionally. And if we need to balance out the new micro (example) a muta cloud move shotting- just make it so 2-11 muta's will stack properly and 12 and more unstack so you can't have 30 muta's 1 shotting everything. Worry about including awesome skills before balance. It's really frustrating seeing the BW pro's switch over without having these extremely visual ways of microing. I'm fairly certain there are quotes of Blizzard explaining that they feel micro tricks are unintuitive to the viewer and therefore a negative factor for esports. I think their philosophy is to keep the game simple but with much depth. I don't agree with this view but I think it is important to understand their vision in order to persuade them. 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.
Dumbing things down tend to work (from a business POV) 
Dota -----> LOL
CS -----> COD
|
Thanks for this Tyler, making the current carrier more like the BW one will make Protoss late-game armies so much more interesting, especially now that they have the tempest and will most likely go air more often.
It seems like Blizz is listening to the community more currently since the beta is out and all, so hopefully this doesn't fall on deaf ears.
|
Incredible video, Nony. I've heard these complaints about carrier micro forever but, having been a complete noob at bw, I didn't really know what y'all were talking about. By being so analytic in your video, you've made the differences obvious. Let's hope Blizzard takes notice of this thread and at least tries to implement some of your requests. David Kim's latest patch note were full of "we thought it would be cool to try x" comments, let's hope that attitude is real. At the very least, it would be fun to see if I could master some of these micro techniques. What does blizzard have to lose? If its totally imbalanced, they can just take the carrier back out. And if HOTS doesn't implement the possibility of this micro, I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one firing up BW a couple of times to check this out.
|
|
|
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 11:27 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
I don't think it's that farfetch'd at all. SC2 Carriers already have leash range which is an "invisible mechanic" but it just doesn't work properly. They should fix the SC2 implementation of leash range.
|
This video is a brilliant display of the problem with SC2 carriers, thanks for producing it Tyler. Here's hoping Blizzard pays attention!
|
absolutely loved the video. had no idea how carrier micro worked in bw, so this is both educational and making me rage at blizzard for ruining it in sc2
|
I hope NonY and/or other pros post this in the Private Pro forum on BNET.
|
Nice video. SC2 carriers having leash range is so dumb if they can't use it effectively.
|
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 which revolve around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
|
Wow. Nony delivers as always. Great to see that people still care about things like this
|
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.
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 12:08 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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
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.
|
Wow, very insightful video! Timing is perfect, too! Hopefully, they will not only leave the Carrier in the game, but they'll give it the interesting micro that made it very fun.
|
Wow awesome video Tyler, I wasn't even aware that Carriers had special micro you could do because I never use them, that would be awesome if they switched it back! Thank you for this :D
|
I think this video is a really succinct way of showing how SC2 may have been made less complex in some areas, effecting how rewarding the game is for skillful players (and viewers). This video shows plainly how the carrier change was lame for the game in general. Still, do I think blizzard doesn't understand the mechanics of their own units in BW after ten years? Not really. It was probably time and money they didn't want to spend.
ed: tense
|
On September 17 2012 12:12 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:08 Aveng3r wrote: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. 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 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.
yeah man this is a totally different language to me once we start talking about code lol... my reaction would be to suggest that the code for the carrier be changed only but then I guess were just back to talking about tylers patch suggestions.. I dont even know if its possible to do that im pretty computer illiterate but w/e
|
Thanks so much for this. I could never understand how a unit with the potential of the BW Carrier could all of a sudden suck so hard in SC2.
If they wanted to address this, they could. I believe in their abilities. I just don't believe they truly want to. Compare Carrier patch notes with Bunker patch notes. Speaks volumes.
|
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!).
isnt this what marine stutter step is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
