Carrier Micro - Page 8

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 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.

On September 17 2012 13:31 whatthefat wrote: "the Carrier has no place in the game because its role is already filled by other units"?

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.

Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design.

On September 17 2012 13:55 Firenza wrote:
This was a really fantastic post. I never played BW competitively, but I remember the idiotic frustration of using the reaver. When people exalt it I just sort of groan to myself and think, "bad pathing should not be part of a unit's balance." It makes me want to defend SCII more vigorously, even as I do understand that I'm truly not "getting it" because I wasn't into competitive BW.

This post is the opposite of that. These concerns make so much sense, and I don't think they're based on buggy AI whatsoever. I basically don't play Protoss, and so I didn't even realize until now that the SCII carrier couldn't switch targets within leash range. That's so awful that I can't believe it wasn't corrected in the WoL beta. I also fully support the idea of instant deployment being micro-based rather than research based. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. And if you do have instant deployment as a micro-based ability, I could see regenerating interceptors as a potential upgrade instead. The ability to target your own interceptors is definitley the most minor issue, and the one I would qualify as the most buggy. The point is that the opponent needs to click on the big thingy in the back instead of A-moving against interceptors; it's to create AI target confusion, not micro-based target confusion.

On September 17 2012 15:06 Jumperer wrote:
MORE VIDEOS NONY. TELL 'EM BLIZZARD ABOUT BW MECHANICS.