|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 12 2013 19:23 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +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.
BW was balanced by being bird with human legs glued to it. Yes, that is the best description of it's engine, using WC2's path-finding but with added isometrical art, that ended up completely screwing path-finding, since Blizzard could not afford to use really small cells for path-finding.+ Show Spoiler +
Also: for a bw fan, you lack posts in BW forums
|
On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
|
What can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design?
Hm.... difficult question, they could learn how to make a good game?
|
On September 13 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest. There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid. There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
simple facts :o
|
On September 07 2013 04:26 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:13 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 04:06 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion (HOTS simply cant be too large, and then LOTV small cause people would complain about that...in other words one expansion cant have too much more than the other expack) 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$$Profit? You simply don't understand. You said all D2 and BW gave the original games all units they needed to have but in fact it didn't Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. SC2 has 2 xpac doesn't really mean they would hold back in HotS to wait for LoTV. They could do their best in HotS then try to improve upon what needed to be improved in LotV because NOTHING is perfect and I am not trying to say all those games were complete. Blizzard has planned for a 3 part SC2, you think they dont set away some ideas for LOTV as they are working in HOTS? you think after HOTS, they have expended all their ideas, and must start anew for LOTV? Blizzard sets aside some stuff for WoL, some stuff for HOTS, and then some stuff for LOTV You think HOTS includes everything they wanted to do for SC2? obviously not they have tons of ideas and only some of it makes it into HOTS, and the rest they plan for LOTV You dont think BW and TFT, and LOD were complete? well sorry to say, but Blizzard says those games were complete and did not add more expacks to them You want to argue that a game is never complete since the Game Developers can arbitrarily add another expansion to it? lol? In your words: "Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. "Then by your definition anything "completed" would never be complete? My point is they could always make more xpacs if they want. They moved on from D2 and BW wasn't because the game were complete in the sense that they couldn't improve it further but because they are done with it and wanted to make other things. You seriously don't they couldn't do more to improve BW and D2? They set the plan for SC2 to be trilogy and it mostly means story. It doesn't really mean they will keep adding more and more units because they planed all those units. Nonoe could ever plan multiplayer in StarCraft. Unit set in SC2 is large enough already at this point. If you think they are holding back units then why the hell they wanted to remove Thor and Carrier? The fact is what xpac will bring is what they think the game need in order to improve not the units they planned. If it's like what you said then SC2 must have less units than BW because Blizz is holding back right? It doesn't. In LotV, they may remove units that they think are bad and add new one that they make by learning from history of HotS. This is how it works. http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/05/31/starcraft-2-legacy-of-the-void-could-have-less-units-than-heart-of-the-swarm/This interview shows that they do things step by step. They started working on LotV when HotS is finished. They didn't really plan everthing.
You fail to understand that Blizzard set out to make the game better when they made BW, not like HoTS which is the second part of their milking trilogy. They made the SC and D2 expansion packs to improve the game as best as they could. They didn't deliberately leave out units/story to milk the franchise at a later point in time. With SC2, it's in their best interests to not complete the game.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 13 2013 01:38 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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: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 I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest. There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid. There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches." WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm. simple facts :o
Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
|
On September 13 2013 01:52 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 01:38 Grumbels wrote:On September 13 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest. There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid. There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches." WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm. simple facts :o Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases?
You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 13 2013 02:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 01:52 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 13 2013 01:38 Grumbels wrote:On September 13 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest. There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid. There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches." WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm. simple facts :o Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game. What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases? You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
You can have same path-finding algorithm (i would not wonder if SC2 is using improved version of WC2 path-finding algorithm), but you cannot have Brood War's pathfinding due to that split title specific. And no, Brood War's pathfinding was not buggy (yes, there was a moment that gave birth to mineral walk, but it was not bug, it was resource consumption task, since you would not bother to direct all resources into trying to find correct path for workers) it was correctly working given where it had to work. I also keep referencing this article to just give you an idea of what StarCraft really was: rushed out game, that somehow ended up working (partially due to campaign and UMS, partially due to de-facto-free-to-play) and that was rushed out because of goddamn fake demo.
|
On September 13 2013 02:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 01:52 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 13 2013 01:38 Grumbels wrote:On September 13 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 16:53 Grumbels wrote:On September 12 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest. There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid. There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches." WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm. simple facts :o Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game. What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases? You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
And I repeat.
The problem with the pathfinding was the bug. You keep bringing up WC3, so let me show you what WC3 did.
a.) reduced unit collisions
b.) uniform unit boxes
in doing so they removed the stop micro of BW because you no longer had to reorient or refresh pathing algorithms in a unit. The "micro" of BW units disappeared.
WC3 replaced it with preset unit clumping and forced behavioral coding that way units would clump neatly unless split apart. That is why WC3 units form grid boxes when box selected. It's the same thing as unit clumping, but forced to look different.
So when you say "just keep BW pathfinding but remove the bugs" it is a meaningless statement.
|
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
|
I don't think there is anything to learn from MOBA patching. MOBAs can patch once a week, buffing and nerfing. The consequences are never a big concern, because there are so many champs. They very often end up reneging on their changes -- that's exactly the kind of sloppiness SC2 can't afford.
SC2 needs a much more cautious, patient, timely approach. I honestly think Blizzard is doing fine in regards to balance. I would hate to see the constant buffing and nerfing that we see in MOBA.
Most of these MOBA creators couldn't create an RTS of 3 different races that feature stark differences, yet are still balanced. Not to the quality of SC2. Not likely at all.
|
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote:
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
|
From Riot? Nothing, and I hope they won't. From Valve? Shitton.
|
On September 13 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote:
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work. The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different.. The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map. Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
The point that he is trying to make is that units clump in all games and the only reason they didn't do so in BW was because of the limits on the pathing. Any system to make them "not clump" would cause problems with control, since the player would have to fight against the units own tendency not to clump up when controlling the unit. So if you wanted the units to bunch up against a bunch of zerglings, they would fight against that due to the fact that they are programmed not to clump up. Right now, all of the units attempt to get as lost to the point you clicked on as possible, which is what you want when attempting to control units.
|
I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
|
On September 13 2013 02:46 Woizit wrote:
I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
The meta is stale because there is nothing to fight for on maps. Even MOBAs fight to defend and attack towers.
|
On September 13 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote:
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work. The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different.. The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map. Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
WC3 units don't move at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group, that's a setting you should turn off if you care about competitive play. And have you played any game of WC3 ever? The units are blocky and run into each other and have to reroute constantly. It's incredibly different from the SC2 pathfinding. However, even despite constantly rerouting, they never get stuck. In Brood War units would get stuck. Don't tell me they can't fix units getting stuck without completely changing clumping behavior and such.
|
Just because MOBAs have more people playing them does not necessarily equate to them being a better game. It just means they are more casual-friendly.
SC2 has more players than BW did, yet im sure most people on TL think BW was a better game.
|
On September 13 2013 02:52 Zrana wrote:
Just because MOBAs have more people playing them does not necessarily equate to them being a better game. It just means they are more casual-friendly.
SC2 has more players than BW did, yet im sure most people on TL think BW was a better game.
Bias due TL being a BW site...
If we asked Forbes magazine which was the better game they'd pick SC2 because more people play it, it's more widespread, it hits a wider market share, and has tournaments happening all over the world.
|
Canada16217 Posts
On September 13 2013 01:24 MrSnibbles wrote:
What can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design?
Hm.... difficult question, they could learn how to make a good game?
SC2 is a good game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
