|
On October 31 2013 19:04 opisska wrote:
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch!
That is generally the entire story. It isn't about what is better, apparently some simply want BW2. If it is in SC2 more random, that is bad, if it is less random, that is also bad.
For as far as I am now with watching it is all about making long ranged units stronger. Is that a balance change we are really waiting on? And it is said in the video that for air units damage point should be 0 seconds. Why? Why 0? Why not 0.1? Why only for air units and not ground units? It seems to me to be completely random. Okay not completely random, but because BW had it, SC2 should have it too.
|
On October 31 2013 20:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 19:04 opisska wrote:
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch! That is generally the entire story. It isn't about what is better, apparently some simply want BW2. If it is in SC2 more random, that is bad, if it is less random, that is also bad. For as far as I am now with watching it is all about making long ranged units stronger. Is that a balance change we are really waiting on? And it is said in the video that for air units damage point should be 0 seconds. Why? Why 0? Why not 0.1? Why only for air units and not ground units? It seems to me to be completely random. Okay not completely random, but because BW had it, SC2 should have it too.
Also, I think the Separation radius was increased during the early days of SC2 to prevent the "viking flower" where players would use patrol to hide the number of vikings they had. I don't know if they added it for all units, but I remember that change preventing viking stacking, which made it impossible to tell how many there were.(unlike BW where there could only be 12).
|
Many valid points imho. We can agree on that it's note easy to make a perfect game that pleases everyone.
Personally I don't like that sequels are "dumbed down"... Not only an BW/SC2 issue.
EDIT: I still prefer SC2 to BW. Just the fact that you are limited to 12 units at a time in BW...
|
@Scissors
Damage point is how long it takes for your units for when you click a target till he actually attacks. A damage point of 0 means as soon as he is given the order to fire he does.
That is why zero.
The vod really only analyzes air units for the most part, ground units are a whole other story (but in some cases you could see a benefit of more responsive units).
Are less responsive units more fun to use? I don't think I've ever met a single person who prefers to play rts's or games in general with higher lag than really minimal lag.
Blizz has a built in latency for the game, adding an extra delay in the form of damage point just seems odd in a lot of cases. I get if its for asthetic purposes, but MOST units have the same default value that is simply too high.
@Plansix
Yep, I remember that change well.
Before, all units still had a separation radius.
Even the viking. They simply bumped it up for the viking.
What we didn't know at the time (hell noone knew) was how separation radius actually bugged units.
Ideally you want to fix the separation radius stopping units for more consistent unit behavior.
You can keep the bigger separation radius so the viking flower is fixed, AND you won't have separation radius causing your vikings to behave differently.
|
On October 31 2013 20:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 19:04 opisska wrote:
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch! That is generally the entire story. It isn't about what is better, apparently some simply want BW2. If it is in SC2 more random, that is bad, if it is less random, that is also bad. For as far as I am now with watching it is all about making long ranged units stronger. Is that a balance change we are really waiting on? And it is said in the video that for air units damage point should be 0 seconds. Why? Why 0? Why not 0.1? Why only for air units and not ground units? It seems to me to be completely random. Okay not completely random, but because BW had it, SC2 should have it too.
Thats really what you got from it? A 45minute video on the possibility for more micro opportunities and the conclusion you draw is we need stronger ranged units and separation should be 0?
|
On October 31 2013 20:12 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Many valid points imho. We can agree on that it's note easy to make a perfect game that pleases everyone.
Personally I don't like that sequels are "dumbed down"... Not only an BW/SC2 issue.
EDIT: I still prefer SC2 to BW. Just the fact that you are limited to 12 units at a time in BW...
Plus you've got terrible hotkey's (P as probe, O as overlord, oh god the agony), glitchy unit behavior, and a host of other problems. It is an old game, but man is it amazing the detail and thought they put into it. The small intricacies of the units.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this.
This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview.
Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part.
Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that
A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet).
B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended?
Watched the vid.
Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much.
Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3
On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop.
Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d
|
@bo1b,
That's not exactly what I said, and the video wasn't exactly 45 minutes filled with ideas. I would more summarize as the idea I got was that it should be BW2.0.
On October 31 2013 20:14 decemberscalm wrote:
@Scissors
Damage point is how long it takes for your units for when you click a target till he actually attacks. A damage point of 0 means as soon as he is given the order to fire he does.
That is why zero.
The vod really only analyzes air units for the most part, ground units are a whole other story (but in some cases you could see a benefit of more responsive units).
Are less responsive units more fun to use? I don't think I've ever met a single person who prefers to play rts's or games in general with higher lag than really minimal lag.
Blizz has a built in latency for the game, adding an extra delay in the form of damage point just seems odd in a lot of cases. I get if its for asthetic purposes, but MOST units have the same default value that is simply too high.
I understand what damage point is, I don't really get why you are explaining that. But for me just saying it should be 0 because BW was zero and then only for air units seems really random. Why not all ground units also zero?
He also doesn't even begin making an analysis of what kind of impact that has on unit balance, let alone on the metagame. I am sorry I don't get hyped everytime someone wants it more like BW.
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop.
|
On October 31 2013 20:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 19:04 opisska wrote:
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch! That is generally the entire story. It isn't about what is better, apparently some simply want BW2. If it is in SC2 more random, that is bad, if it is less random, that is also bad.
How shortsighted can you be?
Cant some bugs be good and others bad?
I play Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast multiplayer for 10 years now. That game is amazing and its 90% like that because of the ~15 bugs that made the game have incredible depth. Lucasarts patched those bugs out a few months later and people massively left the game and some of us left to play on servers that hosted the vanilla patch with all the bugs.
Then few years later some guy discovered 2 bugs that broke the game and made it a lose a TON of depth, not Lucasarts patch level depth loss but still a good chunk. So to refut that people generally agreed among themselves not to abuse those bugs and we played the "old way". A year later thankfully another guy came up with a way to fix that bug in server settings so we once again had the game we enjoyed.
So mind you, the game was still playable with the 2 bugs, but the gameplay was by miles less enjoyable.
Obviously now we can have bugs that add on the gameplay and bugs that ruin it no? Some forms of predictabillity or randomness are aswell better or worse than others. Its not all black and white.
|
On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:@bo1b, That's not exactly what I said, and the video wasn't exactly 45 minutes filled with ideas. I would more summarize as the idea I got was that it should be BW2.0. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 20:14 decemberscalm wrote:
@Scissors
Damage point is how long it takes for your units for when you click a target till he actually attacks. A damage point of 0 means as soon as he is given the order to fire he does.
That is why zero.
The vod really only analyzes air units for the most part, ground units are a whole other story (but in some cases you could see a benefit of more responsive units).
Are less responsive units more fun to use? I don't think I've ever met a single person who prefers to play rts's or games in general with higher lag than really minimal lag.
Blizz has a built in latency for the game, adding an extra delay in the form of damage point just seems odd in a lot of cases. I get if its for asthetic purposes, but MOST units have the same default value that is simply too high.
I understand what damage point is, I don't really get why you are explaining that. But for me just saying it should be 0 because BW was zero and then only for air units seems really random. Why not all ground units also zero? He also doesn't even begin making an analysis of what kind of impact that has on unit balance, let alone on the metagame. I am sorry I don't get hyped everytime someone wants it more like BW. Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop.
The thing is, viewers dont see that a unit is harder to control than necessary. If football had a soft shitty ball the viewers couldn't tell that, they would only see its detrimental effects. The same should hold true for sc2, we want unit to be difficult to micro only in a way that is noticable for the audience. Latency is and bugs are usually detrimental to this, no?
|
All your suggestions seem reasonable. SC2 always had the problem with units not moving fluidly. Good analysis Lalush.
|
On October 31 2013 13:00 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 12:49 Xiphos wrote:On October 31 2013 12:42 ETisME wrote:
I don't see why this isn't in blogs or even BW thread...even if it is well written Please, don't be negative. We need to expose the truth to as much people as possible. As matter of fact, this should be featured to attain more momentum. if anything, Lalush post was nothing more than just "What we had for BW now we don't have in SC2" type of post/blog. decemberscalm's post is way better because he actually identify why we don't have these in SC2, some to do with the engine limitation.
I don't see much difference between this and Nony's video and yet blizzard reacted.
And you present some sort of logical fallacy, we don't have those things because Blizzard did not implement them not because engine behave like that and we cannot change it in editor. We also couldnt change many other things and they were changed by Blizzard.
|
On October 31 2013 20:18 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this. This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview. Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part. Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet). B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended? Watched the vid. Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much. Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3 Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop. Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d
Wow every comment you make on TL is very clever. Thx for your insights.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 31 2013 20:50 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 20:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this. This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview. Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part. Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet). B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended? Watched the vid. Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much. Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3 On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop. Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d Wow every comment you make on TL is very clever. Thx for your insights.
That's okay, but from those comments supporting Lalush, it actually looked like nobody ever thought about those 2 things. Also, thanks for your joke <3.
|
I think it's better to allow players to drag-select enemy units, defaulting to selecting only your units if one is in the selection box. This would let you find out the number of vikings, but you could still allow cool tricks like the viking flower.
|
A very nice video. I have never noticed those subtile changes from BW to SC2. O_O"
|
Great video.
Blizzard needs to see this.
|
One thing gives me hope: This stuff seems like something that is actually doable by blizz and it also has effects only on high level. So we could see those improvements actually coming for LotV.
Blizzard, please notice this!
Thanks LaLush for this thread(and everyone that helped)!
|
On October 31 2013 20:18 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this. This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview. Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part. Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet). B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended? Watched the vid. Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much. Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3 Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop. Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d
Audience will judge if they want to see more BW actions or not. You can definitely make a claim that removing rocket jumps from Quake or quick scoping from CS will have certain positive impact on competetive play. It will certainly put more risk on your actions because the escape mechanic and quick shot mechanic will cease to exist, hence it will be viewed more "strategical" to play without those. But on the other hand you won't be able to strategically abuse those mechanics. In the end you remove another possibility and force people to play "standard" and because this lesser variety the options you have, weigh more.
As a CS player who loved to delve into small things, the idea of removing things like proper air accelaration, quick duck (to see behind crates for example) in CS GO can be only viewed as negative to me because there are less things to explore and abuse. Also there are less things to be aware of.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
This was really insightful, love it, good job LaLush!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
