EPTwhy shouldn't the 2nd row move to the side to make 1 longer row?
I mean, it's great to have opportunities to micro and all, but this seems like a simple bug. Agree with OP, units sent to a location should go to the location you send them.
Pathfinding -- What went wrong? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
why shouldn't the 2nd row move to the side to make 1 longer row? I mean, it's great to have opportunities to micro and all, but this seems like a simple bug. Agree with OP, units sent to a location should go to the location you send them. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
But yeah, just from watching there don't seem to be huge problems? | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
Are you saying units should go around your army to reach its target? Why can't you do it yourself? You're ignoring all the people who are telling you there is a solution: micro the unit yourself, it involves two clicks. Part of the RTS genre is knowing how to position your army and spread it out. If you clump them together against force fields or whatever, its your fault. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
as a whole i'm really pretty happy about the AI, the big issues being units prioritizing workers in combat, ground vs broodlord/broodlings, and right click glitching out to attack move instead of move every now and then | ||
|
Equalizer
Canada115 Posts
| ||
|
OreoBoi
Canada1639 Posts
On April 19 2010 11:49 palanq wrote: ok so if you A-move 2 rows of units toward a hostile wall of buildings, you guys are saying that you want the first row to start attacking, and the second row to bug out? why shouldn't the 2nd row move to the side to make 1 longer row? I mean, it's great to have opportunities to micro and all, but this seems like a simple bug. Agree with OP, units sent to a location should go to the location you send them. Well this only occurs if there is a narrow choke point, units move to the sides if there is room, attatcking a defended chokepoint should always be advantageous to the defender, so I don't see a problem with this. | ||
|
hellokitty[hk]
United States1309 Posts
| ||
|
Random69
35 Posts
The reason for all the twitching characters is actually not a flaw, it is part of the game design. This twitching ability was Dustin Browder`s baby project, he tried to get the twitching unit in previous games he was part of the design team of, but they would not let him. Now that he is the head designer in SC2 he finnally managed to put a little of himself in the game, hence the twitching characters. Basically what these twitching characters represent is true understanding and knowledge Dustin has for Starcraft, which is somewhere between 0 and (infinite)0 Let the Twitching BEGIN !!! | ||
|
Wings
United States999 Posts
this glitch is likely due to the "fluidity" of unit movement that has been included in SC2. If, for example (gonna get very technical), you were using Dijkstra's Algorithm to try and get to the nearest enemy unit (or to one you specified), in SC1 you'd be forced to walk AROUND units, regardless of whether they're just standing there, or engaging in battle, and that would be the shortest valid path. However, SC2 has this very nifty thing where a unit "collides" with a group of units, and they make space, just like how a drop of water isn't a separate object and gets included into the main mass of water. Let's call this "fluidity". Yet during battle, it would be extremely frustrating (and wrong in all sorts of ways) for units to "move" out of the way when they're fighting, just to accommodate your immortals so that they can fight. Therefore, I'm guessing that the twitching is, currently, due to the fact that when units fire, they become "immobile", but when they don't, or perhaps when they kill their intended unit, they become "mobile". As a result, the AI algorithm (assuming shortest path alg / dijkstra's) probably flickers between what it considers to be the shortest VALID paths to the enemy; when the friendly attacking units in front of it, say, kill the enemy unit they were targeting, they become "mobile", and therefore "fluidity" is engaged; the shortest path for the Immortal to the enemy is now THROUGH those fluid units. However, they immediately switch to another target, and now become "immobile" units; "fluidity" is disengaged, so although the actual shortest path is THROUGH, the shortest VALID path is now a different path, and so the unit will twitch the other way. The cycle repeats itself, and the unit will endlessly twitch back and forth. I don't know how much of this is valid but I think it's a fair guess at what might be happening. | ||
|
Doomgaze
Sweden89 Posts
BW was not a good game because Dragoons would suddenly stop and require babying to perform simple commands such as move. Similarly, having whatever unit getting stuck (not even trying to move around the arc of units) when trying to execute a specific attack (say, attack target) is no doubt a flaw in the game mechanics. My $0.02. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On April 19 2010 18:29 Doomgaze wrote: BW was not a good game because Dragoons would suddenly stop and require babying to perform simple commands such as move. But they did. And you had to baby them. And those who could baby them better had a decisive advantage over those who could not. And that made it a much more competitive, complex (read better) game. Similarly, having whatever unit getting stuck (not even trying to move around the arc of units) when trying to execute a specific attack (say, attack target) is no doubt a flaw in the game mechanics. It's not a flaw it's a feature  | ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
That being said, it still doesn't do everything for you. Why should it? If you play a FPS game, and the game mechanics auto target units on the screen...would it be as fun/competitive as those which don't? Sure, inexperienced players would enjoy this more because for them, (mis)targeting is what frustrates the lesser experienced players. The more experienced players are at a higher level because they can manually do what needs to be done. In sc2, if I have an arc of units and new units streaming in, the new units will go around the arc if there is space to do it. If there isn't space, then I do what every RTS veteran knows to do - REPOSITION MANUALLY. The reason sc1 was the greatest RTS ever is because of the "strategy" involved. This includes unit positioning. | ||
|
Doomgaze
Sweden89 Posts
So if any or all units would stop moving randomly, the game would be EVEN better, right? :s Of course I realize that better players will be able to handle "broken" units better, but my point is, the "broken" aspects of certain units should not even exist in the first place. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On April 19 2010 08:29 Random() wrote: It's just that the path won't get auto-recalculated when the force fields are placed. If you order your units to move/attack once more, they will stop poking into it. What bothers me much more is that there is no way to make units keep formation. E.g. zealots will always insist to get mixed into a blob with the other units even if you manually put them forward before the attack, unless the attack order is issued separately to the zealots and then the other units, and even then they won't stay in a line as you put them but clump together. Same with marines/marauders - marines just won't stay behind. I would really like to have a basic formation movement function. Actually I like how that was done in Warcraft 3, the group would move as fast as the slowest unit, and the formation was more or less preserved. That's why you need to hotkey your units under separate hotkeys. Zealots under 1 and Stalkers under 2 for example and then just move them separately. Otherwise they'll just bunch up into an inefficient blob. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On April 19 2010 17:56 Wings wrote: As a result, the AI algorithm (assuming shortest path alg / dijkstra's) probably flickers between what it considers to be the shortest VALID paths to the enemy; when the friendly attacking units in front of it, say, kill the enemy unit they were targeting, they become "mobile", and therefore "fluidity" is engaged; the shortest path for the Immortal to the enemy is now THROUGH those fluid units. However, they immediately switch to another target, and now become "immobile" units; "fluidity" is disengaged, so although the actual shortest path is THROUGH, the shortest VALID path is now a different path, and so the unit will twitch the other way. The cycle repeats itself, and the unit will endlessly twitch back and forth. I don't know how much of this is valid but I think it's a fair guess at what might be happening. That sounds completely reasonable to me and as a consequence it should NOT be fixed imo. The AI should not start to anticipate other (friendly) units actions but act/react on the given state of a unit at a point in time. In combat it should be the player who knows the general unit behaviour and issues commands accordingly. The issues of not moving up a blocked cliff instead and taking advantage of destroyed rocks, even though the player has no knowledge much more disturbing. This definitely needs to be fixed! | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
On April 19 2010 06:52 jeremycafe wrote: Sigh. BW pathfinding was not as bad IMO. Units would not twitch back and forth. This is a broken game mechanic, and something that should have been perfected out early in the engine. If you actually look closer at it, the "twitching back and fourth" is how the new AI solves the old AI's pathing problems. Old AI: zergling #1 in front of me stopped? Attacking his target? It's coo, I'll just wait for him to finish before moving forward. New AI: Zergling #1 in front of me stopped? Attacking his target? Zergling #2 will immediately dart to the left or right without stopping to find an opening. Zergling #2 in front of me stopped? Attacking his target? Zergling #3 will immediately dart to the left or right without stopping to find an opening. ...repeat... zergling #10 in front of me stopped? Attacking his target? Zergling #11 will immediately dart to the left or right without stopping to find an opening. No opening? That's fine, keep darting back and fourth until one presents itself and immediately jump in. I'm like over 9000% sure that the new AI has a better algorithm. Classic example is a zealot ramp block. It's a million times easier now to engage because I don't have to round up the stray zerglings trying to run back across the map for a path that doesnt exist. | ||
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 19 2010 06:50 Liquid`NonY wrote: Most of the AI complaints I have seen from people are always in the context of interacting with their opponent. As far as I can tell, the AI is pretty damn slick when I'm doing things by myself. But yeah, when I interact with my opponent, shit can get pretty damn inefficient unless I micro. Sounds perfect to me. /thread | ||
|
Manbear
Canada306 Posts
On April 19 2010 19:17 iNfeRnaL wrote: Why you make such a big deal out of this when everything has been said perfectly on the first page? /thread if im not mistaken infernal appears to have found the answer to the question | ||
|
Clow
Brazil880 Posts
I like this, now you can't just a-move! | ||
| ||
