|
On October 24 2012 02:58 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:57 Grummler wrote:
automine
BW: No
SC2: Yes
OMG, SC2 too easy, broken game!
autosplit
BW: Yes
SC2: No
OMG, SC2 soo difficult, broken game!
??
profit Not really asking for an auto split. We want units to space out more, and probably increase AOE radius and/or damage to compensate. You still have to manually split to minimize splash damage.
Call it "We want units to space out more" if it makes you feel better. My point stands. People like whining. I do too. Its fun. QQ
|
On October 24 2012 03:00 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:53 two_sheds wrote:On October 24 2012 02:43 Evangelist wrote:So basically they found what every single person with any common sense already knew and figured out it made not a jot of difference. Of course, you're so obsessed with making this into BW, you don't understand that BW had its pathing/hitboxes precisely because it was poorly coded. Face it. You aren't getting it. It also fundamentally changes the nature of terrain and positioning when a small ramp actually affects how long it takes to move troops. Are you saying that the apart from the annoyance factor, this doesn't make a better and more interesting game, especially for competition? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It's artificial difficulty. What's wrong with artificial difficulty ? Great things have come out of this poor coding and bugs in BW, as Falling explains it nicely in his today's blog. Great post by Falling: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=377409 Artificial difficulty ie. fighting against the interface is not only counterintuitive to game design but also detrimental to the game in the long term. Yes, BW was an amazing competitive game after 5 or 6 years, but it is not in todays market nor is it competing with todays games. You would have gotten no one playing SC2 if they all thought it was BW2. Thankfully, it isn't. Which is wonderful for players like me who finally got to enjoy a proper multiplayer RTS designed by people who knew what they were doing - not designed by people obsessed with the past. This thread reminds me of the kind of people who see a scientific discovery and decide to just ignore it because "their way is better". Well it ain't. The point of attack move behaviour is to be predictable. At the moment it IS predictable. Your way would ensure it wasn't. In fact, attack moving up a cliff would result in exactly the same behaviour and would make it even easier to hold cliffs that it already is. Then again, we're talking about a community convinced that the problem with the colossus is that it doesn't have a buggy attack that flies around randomly and hits some random unit for infinite damage, not the fact it is basically designed to kill concaves - a point not a single person besides myself brings up.
A-move would work the same way. Should I explain in greater detail or do you just absolutely disagree?
|
Why can't blizzard find better alternate ways to deal with this?
I played high ladder wc3 for quite awhile; and clumping wasn't as bad there. The auto formation control also worked just fine. Are they saying they can't do as good as wc3??
|
On October 24 2012 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Why can't blizzard find better alternate ways to deal with this?
I played high ladder wc3 for quite awhile; and clumping wasn't as bad there. The auto formation control also worked just fine. Are they saying they can't do as good as wc3??
Technology isnt there yet, sorry.
|
On October 24 2012 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Why can't blizzard find better alternate ways to deal with this?
I played high ladder wc3 for quite awhile; and clumping wasn't as bad there. The auto formation control also worked just fine. Are they saying they can't do as good as wc3??
The first 7 minutes of an average sc2 1v1 will give you more units then you will ever have during an average wc3 1v1. Unit clumping is no issue if you don't have enough units to clump. But i guess you "played high ladder in wc3 for quite a while".
|
Wait...
Blizzard actually... tested this? On their own time?
What if we've been underestimating Blizzard this whole time... ?
|
On October 24 2012 03:15 Crawdad wrote:
Wait...
Blizzard actually... tested this? On their own time?
What if we've been underestimating Blizzard this whole time... ?
It is encouraging, no? Sadly their response indicates they didn't quite get the underlying point, although at least they did a cursory empirical investigation.
|
On October 24 2012 03:00 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:53 two_sheds wrote:On October 24 2012 02:43 Evangelist wrote:So basically they found what every single person with any common sense already knew and figured out it made not a jot of difference. Of course, you're so obsessed with making this into BW, you don't understand that BW had its pathing/hitboxes precisely because it was poorly coded. Face it. You aren't getting it. It also fundamentally changes the nature of terrain and positioning when a small ramp actually affects how long it takes to move troops. Are you saying that the apart from the annoyance factor, this doesn't make a better and more interesting game, especially for competition? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It's artificial difficulty. What's wrong with artificial difficulty ? Great things have come out of this poor coding and bugs in BW, as Falling explains it nicely in his today's blog. Great post by Falling: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=377409 Artificial difficulty ie. fighting against the interface is not only counterintuitive to game design but also detrimental to the game in the long term. Yes, BW was an amazing competitive game after 5 or 6 years, but it is not in todays market nor is it competing with todays games. You would have gotten no one playing SC2 if they all thought it was BW2. Thankfully, it isn't. Which is wonderful for players like me who finally got to enjoy a proper multiplayer RTS designed by people who knew what they were doing - not designed by people obsessed with the past. This thread reminds me of the kind of people who see a scientific discovery and decide to just ignore it because "their way is better". Well it ain't. The point of attack move behaviour is to be predictable. At the moment it IS predictable. Your way would ensure it wasn't. In fact, attack moving up a cliff would result in exactly the same behaviour and would make it even easier to hold cliffs that it already is. Then again, we're talking about a community convinced that the problem with the colossus is that it doesn't have a buggy attack that flies around randomly and hits some random unit for infinite damage, not the fact it is basically designed to kill concaves - a point not a single person besides myself brings up.
My point is that every difficulty in a video game is an artificial one, there are no laws of nature in a virtual world other than the ones we made.
How exciting would football be if players could pass through each other? It is the physics making things "artificially difficult" here, just as programing does it in a virtual world.
The better programing, the more exciting the game is.
What majority of people here is trying to say that there is a better way of programing the game.
Nobody wants fighting the interface, very few people want BW2.
|
After answers like the one dustin gave makes me even want SC2 to completely die out, so I can then tell blizzard "we told you"
|
In a way, Browder's kinda right about the first point. Just tweaking with the magic box values in Galaxy Editor won't do much to fix the clumping problems, which was the method used by Alternative 2 in the OP. Players can still purposefully clump up their armies for maximum DPS, and it becomes easier for players to attack with a spread formation, which might detract from the skill ceiling by removing the "skill" of manually keeping armies spread, although that second point is debatable.
|
Would this affect probes? And Yes it'd be more like Brood War, but are we really trying to make this Brood war with better graphics?
Hey, at least it would make people stop complaining about infestors
|
On October 24 2012 02:43 Evangelist wrote:So basically they found what every single person with any common sense already knew and figured out it made not a jot of difference. Of course, you're so obsessed with making this into BW, you don't understand that BW had its pathing/hitboxes precisely because it was poorly coded. Face it. You aren't getting it. Show nested quote +It also fundamentally changes the nature of terrain and positioning when a small ramp actually affects how long it takes to move troops. Are you saying that the apart from the annoyance factor, this doesn't make a better and more interesting game, especially for competition? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It's artificial difficulty.
the only one fighting the interface are gold players like you. lol.
Stop making the world easier (and thus less exciting, less deep,...) so you can accomplish something as well.
|
On October 24 2012 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Why can't blizzard find better alternate ways to deal with this?
I played high ladder wc3 for quite awhile; and clumping wasn't as bad there. The auto formation control also worked just fine. Are they saying they can't do as good as wc3??
wc3 didnt not had units causing friendly units to move out of the way/pushing them technology. sc2 and wc3 have really different pathfiding systems.
also formation was really bad in wc3, it forced every unit anywhere on the map to move at the slowest unit speed in command group. no body uses it.
|
Hm. Not sure if I'm happy they tested it or sad that they tested it and thought it's bad. I can hardly imagine there wouldn't be significant differences if the units clumped less. Just thinking about fungal and all the AOEs etc...
|
On October 24 2012 03:37 eviltomahawk wrote:
<snip> Players can still purposefully clump up their armies for maximum DPS, and it becomes easier for players to attack with a spread formation, which might detract from the skill ceiling by removing the "skill" of manually keeping armies spread, although that second point is debatable.
This.^
Although, I would say it becomes more rewarding for a player who had the forsight to set up a positional battle before the fight. If you ball up and then engage, you still have to be able to box and split, so I really don't see how the skill ceiling goes down. Saying this really just means that everyone really does just want BW2 because we are still really just fighting the interface, it's just a different problem/difficulty of movement. Do we really want to say it takes *less* skill to correctly anticipate an opponents movements and set up the position in just the right way? We don't need the artificial nerf to good decision making that the balling effect brings to movement within a pre-positioned engagement.
|
Awesome. Someone should send this to browder.
|
On October 24 2012 04:45 PitBoo wrote:
Awesome. Someone should send this to browder.
... do you know what this thread is about?
also to someone, of course, everyone underestimates blizzard and thinks they're total idiots
Just because blizzard doesn't explain every single little thing, people get all elitist and proudly believe blizz is just idiots who can't balance or design anything
they've shown they listen, are reasonable, and they even inform us of how things are going and allow us to give feedback
|
On October 24 2012 04:49 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 04:45 PitBoo wrote:
Awesome. Someone should send this to browder. ... do you know what this thread is about? also to someone, of course, everyone underestimates blizzard and thinks they're total idiots Just because blizzard doesn't explain every single little thing, people get all elitist and proudly believe blizz is just idiots who can't balance or design anything they've shown they listen, are reasonable, and they even inform us of how things are going and allow us to give feedback
I hope you aren't referring to me 
I think the issue is a huge deal (and obviously disagree with their conclusion) hence I started the thread. I tried to be objective as possible and provide alternatives rather than demanding it must be done one way or the other.
|
On October 24 2012 04:49 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 04:45 PitBoo wrote:
Awesome. Someone should send this to browder. ... do you know what this thread is about? also to someone, of course, everyone underestimates blizzard and thinks they're total idiots Just because blizzard doesn't explain every single little thing, people get all elitist and proudly believe blizz is just idiots who can't balance or design anything they've shown they listen, are reasonable, and they even inform us of how things are going and allow us to give feedback
Im new, i'm not sure how things work here, lol. But i'm not sure if Blizzard devs read TL. I've only seen them taking tips from the Bnet forun.
|
On October 24 2012 04:49 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 04:45 PitBoo wrote:
Awesome. Someone should send this to browder. ... do you know what this thread is about? also to someone, of course, everyone underestimates blizzard and thinks they're total idiots Just because blizzard doesn't explain every single little thing, people get all elitist and proudly believe blizz is just idiots who can't balance or design anything they've shown they listen, are reasonable, and they even inform us of how things are going and allow us to give feedback
Nevertheless, it should be posted on BNet.
Not because Blizz is a bunch of "idiots who can't balance or design anything," but because they haven't explored every option yet. If I'm interpreting what Browder said correctly, they ran some tests on it with different variables, but only with the map in the video. If they try different methods of breaking up deathballs, then they might like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
