|
On September 12 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 04:54 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2013 04:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote:
I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW. The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining. However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other. They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps) The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep. It should also be pointed out that BW was run on a "grid" and units could moved from "square" to "square". Two units couldn't "clump" like in SC2, because even when they were right next to each other, they couldn't "pack in". They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The view in BW was much smaller as well, only being in 640/480. The whole game was in a much small space and everything worded within those constraints. Mostly my problem with Day9's vod on it was that he was playing too safe and casual and did not properly explain just *what* is different. My head was dizzy the first time I realized just how massive the screen could get in SC2 compared to BW. I'll probably have something put together by next week since people keep talking about BW pathing and BW etc... without knowing *what* it means. Yeah, that is one of the biggest differences between SC2 and BW. I think I played BW on a 14 inch CRT, with a ball mouse. People really forget how far games have come in that amount of time and what has changed. The pathing is another issue that people just assume is a quick fix and would "solve everything", when it would likely just make some stuff super powered and other things suck.
BW pathing as a result of the available computational power and its effect on the overall gameplay is an interesting topic, but it has little bearing on how one might improve SC2 (beyond being an oft-referred-to data point). Clearly there are any number of pathfinding implementations capable on contemporary home computers not possible in BW days, many of which could be argued to be better than what SC2 currently uses. Arguing for BW pathing is silly, true. Arguing for less clumpy pathing is not. Note that this is a high-level statement and not a descriptor for a "quick fix". Certainly it could affect game balance if the pathing was changed and no units were changed. That's not really the issue though.
With regard to the original topic, evolving unit designs changes the nature of the game significantly as a competitive endeavor, whereas tweaks to the underlying game mechanics would (hopefully) provide more emergent depth instead of a change of scenery, so to speak. Incidentally, I'll reiterate that that's what maps are for.
|
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
|
On September 12 2013 05:31 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 05:15 EatThePath wrote:On September 12 2013 01:02 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 00:45 EatThePath wrote:On September 12 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 11 2013 15:24 EatThePath wrote:On September 11 2013 14:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 11 2013 14:24 NukeD wrote:On September 11 2013 13:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used. Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc. Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously). My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise. Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better. Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting. There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well. Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind. No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same. Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units. The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is. In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in. When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move)) When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other. But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped. I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway. The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings. The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword. The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that. A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect. The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings. Again, this is a "problem" with fluid clumpy movement. Perhaps it'd be better to say, "an arguably undesirable consequence of". + Show Spoiler +In the case of PvZ, there's no mineral sink unit that range dps's zerglings that scales well into the lategame for protoss to be including in their army. So the difference between okay and not okay is very stark. That said, it's okay to add zealots to your army if you see vast quantities of lings and this is more or less effective much of the time. As long as you're fighting lings and not watching them run into your mineral lines.
Just showing you how the smooth controls did not actually nerf zerglings and have made them better 9/10 of the time. This is true for many of the units in SC2 that have transitioned from BW. (Even the firebat's better  )
The clumped armies have problems, and some aspects of the game need looking into. How clumped or smooth they are is not really the problem. If the choose to declump then that's fine, declump it, but if they choose not to declump it then that is fine too since there are still many ways to improve the game whether there is clumping or not.
Melee units, to me, look great clumped. Zerglings, Zealots, Ultralisks, banelings, etc...
Small ranged units look retarded clumped, reapers, marines, etc...
Larger units look okay clumped like tanks, stalkers, etc...
While other large units look dumb like Archons, Thors, etc...
Its not as black and white as you would like it to be.
|
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
I will answer this in a blog post next week.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hack
Good luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this.
|
On September 12 2013 05:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:31 EatThePath wrote:On September 12 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 05:15 EatThePath wrote:On September 12 2013 01:02 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 00:45 EatThePath wrote:On September 12 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 11 2013 15:24 EatThePath wrote:On September 11 2013 14:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 11 2013 14:24 NukeD wrote:
[quote]
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise. Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better. Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting. There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well. Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind. No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same. Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units. The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is. In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in. When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move)) When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other. But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped. I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway. The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings. The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword. The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that. A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect. The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings. Again, this is a "problem" with fluid clumpy movement. Perhaps it'd be better to say, "an arguably undesirable consequence of". + Show Spoiler +In the case of PvZ, there's no mineral sink unit that range dps's zerglings that scales well into the lategame for protoss to be including in their army. So the difference between okay and not okay is very stark. That said, it's okay to add zealots to your army if you see vast quantities of lings and this is more or less effective much of the time. As long as you're fighting lings and not watching them run into your mineral lines. Just showing you how the smooth controls did not actually nerf zerglings and have made them better 9/10 of the time. This is true for many of the units in SC2 that have transitioned from BW. (Even the firebat's better )
I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't really comment on whether they're worse than they used to be in BW, I was pointing out a degenerate situation where tier 1 units have an egregious disparity in how they scale, and implicating the pathfinding. We can theorycraft (with some confidence) that zergling runby's would be worse in a world of less fluid pathing, but I'm much more interested in what engagement dynamics are like generally, and the strategic consequences. E.g. de facto defender's advantage due to inferior local dps while moving into an existing enemy formation.
On September 12 2013 05:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. I will answer this in a blog post next week.
Looking forward to it. 
|
On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
|
On September 12 2013 04:55 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote:
I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever. Use and utilize are very different words.... Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function. Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic. Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds. Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry. Show nested quote +
Full Definition of UTILIZE
: to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms
apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
Not really. People don't say, "I utilize a spoon for scooping". There's a difference between denotation (definition) and conotation (context of the word).
For example, acquit and absolve mean "free from guilt". However, we use "acquit" for law freeing the suspect while absolve can be used in multiple situations such as forgiveness, debt, etc. Same goes for utilize and use. Use focuses on primary function while utilize is based on multiple functions.
|
On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War? You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
|
On September 12 2013 07:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War? You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War? ?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
|
On September 12 2013 06:46 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 04:55 dani` wrote:On September 10 2013 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote:
I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever. Use and utilize are very different words.... Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function. Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic. Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds. Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry.
Full Definition of UTILIZE
: to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms
apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
Not really. People don't say, "I utilize a spoon for scooping". There's a difference between denotation (definition) and conotation (context of the word). For example, acquit and absolve mean "free from guilt". However, we use "acquit" for law freeing the suspect while absolve can be used in multiple situations such as forgiveness, debt, etc. Same goes for utilize and use. Use focuses on primary function while utilize is based on multiple functions.
_Search_ was technically correct that you shouldn't use the word utilize when you actually intended to mean Use; his conclusion was wrong that you should always utilize use as a catch all word instead of utilize.
|
On September 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 07:15 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War? You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War? ?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3 Because the bug was the pathfinding... To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding... There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
|
On September 12 2013 07:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 07:15 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War? You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War? ?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3 Because the bug was the pathfinding... To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding... There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding. you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
|
On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 07:54 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 07:15 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space. http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hackGood luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this. Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War? You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War? ?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3 Because the bug was the pathfinding... To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding... There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding. you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases? They did. Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2. Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
|
Lot of effort in the OP, but it's a pretty pointless discussion. "Balance" in Dota etc is completely different because of the pick/ban mechanic. Both teams have access to the same heroes and have the same mechanisms to remove/abuse them. If there's a horribly OP hero in the pool he just gets banned.
That makes balance in moba games much more robust. The designers can afford to make more sweeping changes because the system can self-correct for a certain amount of imbalance. SC2, by comparison, is asymmetric and has no mechanic like the pick/ban phase, so it has to be modified in a much more conservative way.
There are a few small things SC2 might be able to learn from mobas, but it's rarely helpful to compare them.
|
On September 12 2013 17:00 Belisarius wrote:
Lot of effort in the OP, but it's a pretty pointless discussion. "Balance" in Dota etc is completely different because of the pick/ban mechanic. Both teams have access to the same heroes and have the same mechanisms to remove/abuse them. If there's a horribly OP hero in the pool he just gets banned.
That makes balance in moba games much more robust. The designers can afford to make more sweeping changes because the system can self-correct for a certain amount of imbalance. SC2, by comparison, is asymmetric and has no mechanic like the pick/ban phase, so it has to be modified in a much more conservative way.
There are a few small things SC2 might be able to learn from mobas, but it's rarely helpful to compare them.
I had an idea that, say, contaminate was similar-ish to banning heroes in dota. You can reserve it for the strongest aspect of the opponent's race, so it helps contain more imbalanced things. :o
|
...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
|
On September 12 2013 18:32 Belisarius wrote:
...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
I think that theoretically contaminate could have an equalizing effect on balance, somewhat similar(-ish!) to banning heroes in dota. It can help contain aspects of the opponent's race that are strong. Your counter arguments are a bit pitiful and nonsensical, the specifics of resource and opportunity cost, race availability etc. really don't matter for my theory. And where did you get that I was proposing that we could "ban unit X"? :o
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On September 12 2013 18:32 Belisarius wrote:
...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
RTS games are not hard to balance.
It is SC2 with asymmetrical economy and production for each race that is hard to balance.
Had developers kept economy like it was in BW SC2 units would have been much easier to balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
