|
On June 20 2012 05:31 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 05:27 RampancyTW wrote:On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir. The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling. SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet. The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down. Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling? No.
Lowering the skill ceiling makes it harder to differentiate yourself at the top levels of play. Raising the skill floor simply makes it easier for bad players to play a reasonable game. The skill gap between the floor and the ceiling is so wide that the raising of the floor is negligible.
|
Sorry for double post please delete.
|
I'm hoping they will offer a Broodwar Forever at some point after legacy of the Void that will be a perfect remake of broodwar with improved graphics. I know it's a long shot, but that's my wish. The game was so flawless.
|
I hate it when people say redicolous arguments like: Sc2 is young, was bw good the first years?
First of all most of the people who say that have very limited knowledge of BW, secondly they are very different games made in different time periods.
It's true that SC1 had some issues when it came out but all the broken strats and glitches(that broke the game) were gone with the expansion that was released the same year (8 months after SC1). From there on people(alot in korea) started to figure out how to actually play the game with build orders, unit compositions and micro/macro tricks. It just doesn't have the same issues like SC2 have that would make it a much worse game to play and spectate.
In competitive BW, skill raised by better builds, new strats on maps, players played more so better multitasking/macro/micro, and people also figured out these little tricks that make the game so much more interesting(mutalisk stacking, lurker hold, unit through minerals).
In SC2 we have see alot of improvement, but due to the game design, it is just not gonna improve the same way BW did, so what pro's have learned to always split their army in 1 more year? That's not gonna make the upcoming battle any more interesting.
|
I see that there are a lot of misconception going on here.
Let me pick a simple example: limited unit selection. In BW it is set to 12 units per group, in SC2 it is set to 255 I believe.
Which one is better?
None of them.
Why?
In BW you are not willing to have +12 units in a control group anyway, because it is much easier to move your army around with multiple control groups and makes microing easier. BW rewards greatly players who micro. One interesting side effect of this restriction is that the game forces the players to spread out their army and to create flanking positioning. It is very pleasing to watch a 200/200 battle roll out in BW because it is very spread out in the map and the engagement takes time enough to viewers appreciate the progamers microing and little tricks.
In SC2 you have hypotetically infinite unit selection, which means you could separate your army into multiple groups just like in BW. However in SC2 things are different, especially for the protoss race: if you spread your army into multiple groups you may get punished for those seconds you take issuing the attack command for each one of them, because everything happens way too fast. Another reason as to why you are punished if you have multiple groups is that the unit pathing is extraordinary, so unlike BW, controlling a huge army with one or two control groups is easier.
One interesting exception in SC2, and that remind BW games, is the marine spreading vs banelings. This is what SC2 urgently needs more. Instead of having spells that unables your opponent's micro (FF, FG), SC2 units/spells should incentive micro from both parties during the engagement (and no, FF/FG casting is not the kind of micro I'm talking about).
So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
Unfortunately if you have never truly experienced BW, you may be not ablet to understand what I'm trying to say and will think I'm just another "BW elitist" trying to convert SC2 into Neo BW. Believe me, I truly wish that SC2 can become as good as BW, since the last one is gone.
|
Bring back the arbiter T_T
|
On June 20 2012 06:10 Guamshin wrote:
I hate it when people say redicolous arguments like: Sc2 is young, was bw good the first years?
First of all most of the people who say that have very limited knowledge of BW, secondly they are very different games made in different time periods.
It's true that SC1 had some issues when it came out but all the broken strats and glitches(that broke the game) were gone with the expansion that was released the same year (8 months after SC1). From there on people(alot in korea) started to figure out how to actually play the game with build orders, unit compositions and micro/macro tricks. It just doesn't have the same issues like SC2 have that would make it a much worse game to play and spectate.
In competitive BW, skill raised by better builds, new strats on maps, players played more so better multitasking/macro/micro, and people also figured out these little tricks that make the game so much more interesting(mutalisk stacking, lurker hold, unit through minerals).
In SC2 we have see alot of improvement, but due to the game design, it is just not gonna improve the same way BW did, so what pro's have learned to always split their army in 1 more year? That's not gonna make the upcoming battle any more interesting. In SC2, skill is raising with better builds, new strategies on maps, players getting better at multitasking, macro, and micro as they play more, and cute ways to use units.
A lot of "pro" SC2 players are still pretty awful at the game, as evidenced by how easily they get their faces smashed by the actual top players.
I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: as SC2 gets older and top players get better, many of the criticisms of SC2 in relation to SC:BW are getting outdated. The recent MLGs especially have demonstrated that many of the posters in this thread were simply wrong about the nature of SC2. Yourself included.
|
there are already goliaths they are called vikings. And swarm hosts are reintroduced lurkers?.. lol
|
On June 20 2012 06:12 fabiano wrote:
So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
Well, here's an idea. I know it's kinda crazy, but here me out:
If you want units that do cool micro tricks, then ask for that!
This thread is basically the exact opposite of what you're saying. It's not about people wanting units like SC1 had. It's all about how "Blizzard keeps making units that are kinda like SC1 units, so they should just bring those back." This is saying that old units are better because they're old, not because of some specific aspect of them. The Lurker is should be used instead of the Swarm Host because its "the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?"
So you can't claim that this this thread isn't about people wanting the game to use more SC1 units. Because that's exactly what this thread is about. That's what the OP says he wants.
|
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir.
Respond or not as you see fit.
The point I've been trying to make from the start is that you seem to want to make this into a right and wrong question. The reality is there are probably hundreds of different solutions to the very real issues the SC2 has. ONE possible solution is the make the game just like BW... that isn't the only option. SC2 is a different game and only time will tell if it is as good as BW. Right now it isn't and I think you and I are on the same page as far as the question goes.
But you can't just blindly say that "If they don't make the interface just like Brood War's, then it will never be as good". There is more than one way to have a high skill ceiling.
And man, I have to say, you're definitely the first one on here ever to accuse me of being an SC2 apologist. The game is flawed, I've said that right along. BW is way better than SC2 as it currently is, I just think it is entirely possible SC2 could be as good even without reverting the interface. I think the much bigger problem is the units themselves and the severe lack of anything microable.
Good day to you as well.
|
On June 20 2012 06:12 fabiano wrote:
I see that there are a lot of misconception going on here.
Let me pick a simple example: limited unit selection. In BW it is set to 12 units per group, in SC2 it is set to 255 I believe.
Which one is better?
None of them.
Why?
In BW you are not willing to have +12 units in a control group anyway, because it is much easier to move your army around with multiple control groups and makes microing easier. BW rewards greatly players who micro. One interesting side effect of this restriction is that the game forces the players to spread out their army and to create flanking positioning. It is very pleasing to watch a 200/200 battle roll out in BW because it is very spread out in the map and the engagement takes time enough to viewers appreciate the progamers microing and little tricks.
In SC2 you have hypotetically infinite unit selection, which means you could separate your army into multiple groups just like in BW. However in SC2 things are different, especially for the protoss race: if you spread your army into multiple groups you may get punished for those seconds you take issuing the attack command for each one of them, because everything happens way too fast. Another reason as to why you are punished if you have multiple groups is that the unit pathing is extraordinary, so unlike BW, controlling a huge army with one or two control groups is easier.
One interesting exception in SC2, and that remind BW games, is the marine spreading vs banelings. This is what SC2 urgently needs more. Instead of having spells that unables your opponent's micro (FF, FG), SC2 units/spells should incentive micro from both parties during the engagement (and no, FF/FG casting is not the kind of micro I'm talking about).
So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
Unfortunately if you have never truly experienced BW, you may be not ablet to understand what I'm trying to say and will think I'm just another "BW elitist" trying to convert SC2 into Neo BW. Believe me, I truly wish that SC2 can become as good as BW, since the last one is gone.
This is BS. In SC2, you're rewarded for using multiple control groups. Whether it is to set up a flanking position, a better concave, or controlling 2 drops while also attacking the main base, or making a real 2 pronged attack, with both groups being micro'ed, poking, and prodding every weakness. The best players take advantage of this. Terran elevator play is a prime example, where there's a drop in your main, and an attack at your natural.
Pro players have also even started to micro in those massive deathball battles because they have figured out that sometimes it's worth it. Whether it's moving 1-2 marauders forward so that those colossus shots don't splash on 5 other units (even though that only lasts a couple seconds), or the splits from banelings and all, we are starting to see very micro-intensive maneuvers.
Another thing, it seriously boggles the mind that people want to break the UI. Perfect movement is a GOOD thing. If I click a unit, and right click on a different spot, that action SHOULD be executed. The fact that some BW players became gods at moving dragoons from point A to point B (ooo, how exciting) should not be reasoning to break SC2's fantastic UI.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On June 19 2012 23:01 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 16:12 Falling wrote:It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me? That's where I would disagree with you. I've got a bunch of screen shots from last weekend's Dreamhack that very much illustrate my complaints on unit clumping There's been some improvement sure, but it's not so significant as all that. Most of the lineup at Dreamhack would be considered doormats at many other events at the moment, although there were some pretty good players for sure. I wouldn't doubt that you managed to take a ton of screenshots of players with comparatively poor unit control blobbing around, because that's what is easiest to do. It is NOT what is most efficient to do, and it is NOT what the actual top players prefer to do with their army. Protoss is a little blobbier by nature, but it's not like this is new to Starcraft (1a2a3a, anyone?)
Well if not Dreamhack, then what? But how about MLG- they get a lot of the big Koreans? And I took a bunch of screenshots from there too. Now mind you, I'm not going out of my way to get these pictures to prove a point. I'm just watching games and then I get annoyed by what I'm seeing and fire up fraps.
Maybe GSL? I'll admit I can't watch that anymore as I can no longer go to work on 2 hours of sleep. But even when they spread out (from what I've seen), it's just smaller blobs.
But BW Protoss is not blobby at all. The joke is 1a2a3a, but it's all about spreading out your army, flanking the terran and coming in at all sides to minimize splash damage. Or being super mobile by recalling your army around the map with multiple arbiters or hit and running with carriers. Basically anti-deathball. PvZ you could maybe make the argument for blobby (late game), but then it's the zerg armies that fills the screen. Even PvP, you need that nice spread out concave for effective dragoon fire as well as minimizing storm damage.
Another thing, it seriously boggles the mind that people want to break the UI. Perfect movement is a GOOD thing. If I click a unit, and right click on a different spot, that action SHOULD be executed. The fact that some BW players became gods at moving dragoons from point A to point B (ooo, how exciting) should not be reasoning to break SC2's fantastic UI.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what is being argued/ highly ignorant. No-one is arguing to break the AI. If anything, we're arguing to allow more options as the current unit movement creates limitations that didn't exist before.
Clumping ≠ perfect movement. You can have click unit and right click different terrain and the action is execute and not have have units clump. Or else have better options to be able to clump or not.
What makes dragoon micro exciting is not moving from point a to point b. Any more than what makes SC2 marine micro is simply moving from point a to point b. It's the ability to attack retreat, attack retreat, then maybe move forward to snipe a tank and then retreat back with precise responses to your commands. There was also the cool tricks to defuse mines via micro. Please do not simplify the arguments in such a manner.
|
On June 20 2012 06:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 23:01 RampancyTW wrote:On June 19 2012 16:12 Falling wrote:It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me? That's where I would disagree with you. I've got a bunch of screen shots from last weekend's Dreamhack that very much illustrate my complaints on unit clumping There's been some improvement sure, but it's not so significant as all that. Most of the lineup at Dreamhack would be considered doormats at many other events at the moment, although there were some pretty good players for sure. I wouldn't doubt that you managed to take a ton of screenshots of players with comparatively poor unit control blobbing around, because that's what is easiest to do. It is NOT what is most efficient to do, and it is NOT what the actual top players prefer to do with their army. Protoss is a little blobbier by nature, but it's not like this is new to Starcraft (1a2a3a, anyone?) Well if not Dreamhack, then what? But how about MLG- they get a lot of the big Koreans? And I took a bunch of screenshots from there too. Now mind you, I'm not going out of my way to get these pictures to prove a point. I'm just watching games and then I get annoyed by what I'm seeing and fire up fraps. Maybe GSL? I'll admit I can't watch that anymore as I can no longer go to work on 2 hours of sleep. But the interesting thing. But even when they spread out (from what I've seen), it's just smaller blobs. But BW Protoss is not blobby at all. The joke is 1a2a3a, but it's all about spreading out your army, flanking the terran and coming in at all sides to minimize splash damage. Or being super mobile by recalling your army around the map with multiple arbiters or hit and running with carriers. Basically anti-deathball. PvZ you could maybe make the argument for blobby (late game), but then it's the zerg armies that fills the screen. Even PvP, you need that nice spread out concave for effective dragoon fire as well as minimizing storm damage. There were plenty of "doormats" at MLG as well, but the overall caliber of play was much higher. Polt, Stephano, MarineKing, Symbol, Violet etc. all played some incredible games that demonstrated just how untapped SC2's potential is. The unit control and in-battle decision-making displayed by those players just completely outclassed that of the lesser participants'.
Don't blame the game for shortcomings of its playerbase. As pro players continue to improve, the clumpiness, blobbiness, etc. will phase out in favor of the (far more efficient) spreading, poking, re-arranging, distracting, etc.
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
|
Canada11369 Posts
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice.
|
On June 20 2012 07:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point. I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice. You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army.
Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents?
|
Canada11369 Posts
On June 20 2012 07:10 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 07:02 Falling wrote:The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point. I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice. You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army. Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents?
Oh no. My argument has never been there is no such thing as unit control in SC2 or that it makes no difference. Far from it or I wouldn't even bother watching MLG. I think there are some very good moments in SC2. But all I want is more. More of everything good and less boring play. And while I agree players will find new ways, I think there are some very intentional game design changes that Blizzard could make that could dial this process up to the max. I don't know, is that an unreasonable position to take?
Edit
It's just that the counter to some of my arguments are, well you haven't been looking at high enough level play. Whereas, I can point to low level play in BW that has incredible spectator moments. Even D players muta micro and vulture micro. And specifically, D level army control that has armies that take up entire screens with flanking.
|
I mean, you say they aren't bringing them back, but watching the HotS stuff I've seen, I felt like I was seeing mech versions of firebats, and spider mines on crack.
I think they're doing a good job of re-introducing units similar to what we miss, but with changes that make them better fit into gaps in the current meta, and I'm very glad for it.
I'm super excited about HotS, and while we don't have lurkers, other units are being given the capabilities to fill the role they served, so that Zerg players have a diverse toolkit. I'm actually rather glad it isn't a decade old toolkit.
|
On June 20 2012 07:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 07:10 RampancyTW wrote:On June 20 2012 07:02 Falling wrote:The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point. I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice. You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army. Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents? Oh no. My argument has never been there is no such thing as unit control in SC2 or that it makes no difference. Far from it or I wouldn't even bother watching MLG. I think there are some very good moments in SC2. But all I want is more. More of everything good and less boring play. And while I agree players will find new ways, I think there are some very intentional game design changes that Blizzard could make that could dial this process up to the max. I don't know, is that an unreasonable position to take? Edit It's just that the counter to some of my arguments are, well you haven't been looking at high enough level play. Whereas, I can point to low level play in BW that has incredible spectator moments. Even D players muta micro and vulture micro. And specifically, D level army control that has armies that take up entire screens with flanking. There are points in low-level play in SC2 with incredible spectator moments as well. They're just not nearly as frequent as they are with the top players.
I agree that SC2 could use more of everything good and less boring play. I also feel that the player-driven side of that process is adequate. The new units being introduced in HotS appear to be less death-bally so far as well, so it's not as if Blizzard isn't trying to promote the good stuff.
The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest.
|
Canada11369 Posts
The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest.
My contention is that it isn't as precise. Very few units allow such precise control as moving shot except the marine. It's not an artificial limitation to add more micro possibilities. If anything, SC2 has imposed it's own artificial limitations either due to unit design (sluggish control- Thor's are only the most extreme example) or else Battlenet latency.
Clumping is different, but I don't know if it's more precise than well designed dynamic movement.
I think people get hung up with all the bugs found in the BW ai, but I don't think anyone would argue for a copy-paste of the unit ai (if that were possible.) However, there are some very specific unit control options that if reborn with modern coding would breathe life into unit interactions in any modern RTS game (SupCom2, C&C4, Battle for MiddleEarth2 included.)
|
On June 20 2012 07:31 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest. My contention is that it isn't as precise. Very few units allow such precise control as moving shot except the marine. It's not an artificial limitation to add more micro possibilities. If anything, SC2 has imposed it's own artificial limitations either due to unit design (sluggish control- Thor's are only the most extreme example) or else Battlenet latency. Clumping is different, but I don't know if it's more precise than well designed dynamic movement. I think people get hung up with all the bugs found in the BW ai, but I don't think anyone would argue for a copy-paste of the unit ai (if that were possible.) However, there are some very specific unit control options that if reborn with modern coding would breathe life into unit interactions in any modern RTS game (SupCom2, C&C4, Battle for MiddleEarth2 included.) Would love for more micro-based units. Which is largely what we're getting with HotS.
Clumping is completely more precise than dynamic movement. Since all units take the shortest possible path to the target area, they will do the same thing every time when identically placed. Every time. The same thing. That's the very definition of precise.
There are no random movement elements with the clumping. Dynamic movement would add elements of randomness.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. SC2 works just fine with its current movement mechanics, however, and there's no objective need to change them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
