EPTInterviews: Louder, Chill, PsyonicReaver - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
| ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:24 flabortaster wrote: So, it's either smart, logical AI or not. The latter may take more "skill", but it not logical to have unit who don't know the simplest to a point or target. I'll take smarter AI over babysitting AI/pathfinding any day. It should be the player micro that make units excel not keep them from doing something monumentally stupid.(Dragoons going up ramps come to mind) SC1 default AI was terrible, needing the player to manually use them just to make them competent in battle. Unit AI should be by default competent while Player micro should makes them excel even more. Like it was said, the game is not fully automated. You still have to make the tough decisions, but units should fail just because they cant handle themselves without you every attention. Well said  | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre?  There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Which is scary. They are trying to cater people who have no idea about e-sports and professional gaming and are just looking for a few good months of fun. It's well within Blizzards rights to do whatever they want and they should pick whatever route they feel is best for their company. As a fan of professional gaming though it is precisely that line of thought that has kept e-sports from developing. SC2 will have a huge scene much bigger than WC3. It will have tons of tournaments where all kinds of top players will win good sums of money and have solid sponsorships, but transcending the gaming scene the way BW did in Korea is still a big question mark. | ||
|
lolamon
Norway3 Posts
thanks | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:33 Eury wrote: I'm afraid that having broken path finding and dumb AI won't happen in SC 2 no matter how much you complain about it. If you want that go and play SC:BW, last time I checked it worked just fine. Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. There won't be a sc2 pro scene if the game doesn't take skill. There's nothing separating 2 players if both player's zerglings auto surround. The terrible thing about the new AI is that if you try to micro you'll be worse off than if you just watched the new incredible AI in action. On February 25 2010 20:24 flabortaster wrote: SC1 default AI was terrible, needing the player to manually use them just to make them competent in battle. That's what makes esports interesting. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
| ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:16 bendez wrote: I have, extensively. Compared to starcraft, it was "dumb". Lol? Loading units into transporters(marine/apc), that was buggy from time to time, but that's about it. The units in Starcraft are even "dumber" and the game was released two years later. | ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
| ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Which is scary. They are trying to cater people who have no idea about e-sports and professional gaming and are just looking for a few good months of fun. It's well within Blizzards rights to do whatever they want and they should pick whatever route they feel is best for their company. As a fan of professional gaming though it is precisely that line of thought that has kept e-sports from developing. SC2 will have a huge scene much bigger than WC3. It will have tons of tournaments where all kinds of top players will win good sums of money and have solid sponsorships, but transcending the gaming scene the way BW did in Korea is still a big question mark. No, there has been plenty of progress. Destructable terrains, controllable strategic points, smoke/grass cover, etc. You may not like it, but many of us do, and it sure was a progress to the genre. I really can't see the connection between smart unit pathing and e-sports from developing, so I can't comment there. | ||
|
cerebralz
United States443 Posts
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers. There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. | ||
|
Nafaltar
Germany302 Posts
| ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:33 Eury wrote: I'm afraid that having broken path finding and dumb AI won't happen in SC 2 no matter how much you complain about it. If you want that go and play SC:BW, last time I checked it worked just fine. The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Please name 1 rts game that hasn't been a complete failure in the last decade. Tick tock tick tock tick tock. Times up moron, there have been none! so what is this progress you're talking about? Is it you being able to build 10 battlecruisers simultaneously in sc2 and comps stomp the ai? | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2. A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers. There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 21:01 bendez wrote: Good point except for the part where no one is complaining about anything that you mentioned, good work on being totally stupid.No, there has been plenty of progress. Destructable terrains, controllable strategic points, smoke/grass cover, etc. You may not like it, but many of us do, and it sure was a progress to the genre. I really can't see the connection between smart unit pathing and e-sports from developing, so I can't comment there. | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
|
Ota Solgryn
Denmark2011 Posts
Is the micro part "almost non-existing" just because the units surround the enemy automatically and have very good pathing, and that this means if you touch you units they actually kill less? I mean, are there not any situations where it is better to control the units in another way than just the surround? Also how about flanking and army position; i.e. the pathing cannot possible do this, or is there just no need to flank etc? A last note; a very specific example: In lings vs lings battles many players "overmicro" their lings and lose ling battles they would have won if they had just not "microed" their lings. They lose the battle because of a lack of knowlegde (but if they have the right knowlegde they would have won the battle more convincinly). Can't this be applied to SC2 to? That people simply have not figured out how to micro yet? So what do the SC2 players say ? | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 21:14 Nafaltar wrote: I find it hilarious how people say that micro is none existent in SC2 while it is the fact that micro is much more important compared to macro in the sequel that is allowing WC3 players to take a number of top spots. In BW micro on 3 zealots won't save you from 18 speedlings either. Its just that BW has been figured out to a very high degree so most of the time armys will be fairly even matched when they do clash, because both players know what works and how to be able to do this. While in most SC2 games at the moment one player lucks out and gets a BO win or one player is just vastly better than another. Yes a few micro elements have gone missing but we did get a couple new ones aswell. wc3 players are taking top spots for the following reasons: 1. not everyone has a beta key and I'm guessing you included because you don't know anything 2. the game is easier and wc3 players are competent enough to be good at it Micro isn't more important than macro or any stupid simplification like that. Macro and macro were reduced and everything got easier. You had to do everything at once in brood war while thinking about strategy at the same time, that's what made it so unique. It's not a click fest you morons learn to play | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 21:25 Ota Solgryn wrote: Some questions for those that play the game. Is the micro part "almost non-existing" just because the units surround the enemy automatically and have very good pathing, and that this means if you touch you units they actually kill less? I mean, are there not any situations where it is better to control the units in another way than just the surround? Also how about flanking and army position; i.e. the pathing cannot possible do this, or is there just no need to flank etc? A last note; a very specific example: In lings vs lings battles many players "overmicro" their lings and lose ling battles they would have won if they had just not "microed" their lings. They lose the battle because of a lack of knowlegde (but if they have the right knowlegde they would have won the battle more convincinly). Can't this be applied to SC2 to? That people simply have not figured out how to micro yet? So what do the SC2 players say ?The amount of micro and macro options were reduced and because the AI is so smart you can just leave your units untouched and they will do a decent job against someone trying to micro. Things die so rapidly that piling everything together and attack moving is the majority of what you do. You still CAN micro and macro but it's very very little compared to brood war. Infact the AI is so smart that it battles your orders sometimes, rofl. | ||
| ||
