|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss 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 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.
My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. If my English is that bad that it was not understandable, excuse me.
Second point is right but it is subjective. Granted, gameplays of CS and CS:GO IIRC do not differ nearly enough in general, so those 'small' features make it a game. Now that raises a question: is SC2's gameplay that different for removal of abusive mechanics of BW (yes, i am going to call moving shot in it's BW version and especially (!!!) muta stacking abusive mechanic, and that's just a misinformed opinion, so whatever) to be an issue. Answer for yourself.
|
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 :3Show 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 The bolded is extra-hilarious to me.
Engine mechanic in SC2 exists which allows for players with good control to get more out of their units than other players who don't control their units in this fashion. However, it does so in a different way than in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT.
Another example: clumped vikings do not kite nearly as well as spread vikings. A player who keeps his vikings spread will be able to kite far better than a player who just clumps them up with no special care or attention. This allows the better player to get more usage out of his units. However, it does so in a different way than it would in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT.
You can wash-rinse-repeat this process for sooo many mechanics in SC2.
|
On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote: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 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. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game.
What would Tribes been without skiing? A mediocre team based FPS game with a few cool mechanics. Skiing is one of the things that made Tribes 2 and other Tribes titles a skillful game. The same is true with SC1 micro.
I was pumped for years for SC2 because I was hoping it'd be an updated StarCraft with cool new units and mechanics, but still the StarCraft we knew and loved. It is getting so far from that...
|
On October 31 2013 21:19 zatic wrote:
This was really insightful, love it, good job LaLush!
Sup Zatic!
Thank you Lalush for the effort you placed into this. Personally, I'm enjoying myself reading the comments down here. Rofl!
|
so, we know what is wrong with the current game, and we also know that blizzard won't re-balance the entire game after 3-4 years. Why someone with the right skills (Lalush, you're learning the galaxy editor right?) and a lot of free-time (:D), just don't work on a mod? But not something like SC2BW or STARBOW, those two mods are awesome but create a mod with only SC2 units, everything that is sc2 now with improved mechanics and show to blizzard that is better. Maybe someone will start playing the mod instead of the real game, maybe some pro will switch to it, maybe some tournament will pick this up.. or maybe not.
It's to all of you
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 31 2013 21:31 Arco wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote: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 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. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. What would Tribes been without skiing? A mediocre team based FPS game with a few cool mechanics. Skiing is one of the things that made Tribes 2 and other Tribes titles a skillful game. The same is true with SC1 micro. I was pumped for years for SC2 because I was hoping it'd be an updated StarCraft with cool new units and mechanics, but still the StarCraft we knew and loved. It is getting so far from that...
Is skiing a bug though? Never heard about Tribes, so have no clue. And if skiing a bug, was Tribes so bad of a game, that skiing was in fact the only good thing about it ;3? Ah, nvm, FPS, well FPS are at the core of a genre are so look-alike that stuff like skiing can actually be game-defining.
|
On October 31 2013 21:36 FrozenProbe wrote:
so, we know what is wrong with the current game, and we also know that blizzard won't re-balance the entire game after 3-4 years. Why someone with the right skills (Lalush, you're learning the galaxy editor right?) and a lot of free-time (:D), just don't work on a mod? But not something like SC2BW or STARBOW, those two mods are awesome but create a mod with only SC2 units, everything that is sc2 now with improved mechanics and show to blizzard that is better. Maybe someone will start playing the mod instead of the real game, maybe some pro will switch to it, maybe some tournament will pick this up.. or maybe not.
It's to all of you
Its a lot of work and some stuff (like decembercalm mentioned) is hard coded and therefore hard to fix or even impossible.
Its very unlikly that a pro will switch to a modus where he is not able to earn money.
|
On October 31 2013 21:29 RampancyTW 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 :3On 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 The bolded is extra-hilarious to me. Engine mechanic in SC2 exists which allows for players with good control to get more out of their units than other players who don't control their units in this fashion. However, it does so in a different way than in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. Another example: clumped vikings do not kite nearly as well as spread vikings. A player who keeps his vikings spread will be able to kite far better than a player who just clumps them up with no special care or attention. This allows the better player to get more usage out of his units. However, it does so in a different way than it would in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. You can wash-rinse-repeat this process for sooo many mechanics in SC2.
and good players use clumped vikings to snipe while spreading out when an engagement start as we can see from infestor broodlord era.
|
I loved BW when it came out, but after playing WC3 and SC2, all the unnecessary user unfriendly mechanics just ruins the experience for me. Small selection groups, buggy movement, single building selection... the list goes on. There is plenty of micro skill in SC2, please dont try to say anything else.
My 2 cents.
|
I'd love to see these changes implemented. Great job Lalush and co.
|
Lalush is the Fox Mulder of esports, always getting to the bottom of the mind-boggling mysterious shit that goes on in the game.
|
Ty for all the hard work Lalush. I hope Blizzard will have the courage to experiment with some of the points you bring up in the LotV beta 
|
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.
@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.
That does seem to be a bug with the air units that makes a lot of them less useful when massed. The thing I take from this video is that Blizzard should address the bug that causes air units not to fire quickly when I large numbers. That and they should change the units with turrets to track units to allow for new types of micro. If we can keep the discuses focused on addressing those issues, I think it would improve the game.
|
On October 31 2013 21:42 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:29 RampancyTW wrote: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 :3On 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 The bolded is extra-hilarious to me. Engine mechanic in SC2 exists which allows for players with good control to get more out of their units than other players who don't control their units in this fashion. However, it does so in a different way than in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. Another example: clumped vikings do not kite nearly as well as spread vikings. A player who keeps his vikings spread will be able to kite far better than a player who just clumps them up with no special care or attention. This allows the better player to get more usage out of his units. However, it does so in a different way than it would in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. You can wash-rinse-repeat this process for sooo many mechanics in SC2. and good players use clumped vikings to snipe while spreading out when an engagement start as we can see from infestor broodlord era.
Perhaps subconsciously aware of it ?? Who knows. More than likely it is due to a player wanting all of their dps front loaded onto targets when sniping and spreading out against fungle growth.
As for glitches and patching them out, the "tripping" behavior caused by the separation radius really is just so random. The overkill bug even more so.
Here is the fundamental difference between the tripping compared to patrol shot from BW, rocket jumping from quake, or skiing in tribes.
It detracts from your units instead of giving them more versatility or utility. It actively punished the player in a pretty inconsistent way.
To give a BW example, no one likes it when you've got 30 dragoons stuck on some random obstacle.
You could argue it increases the skill cap because you have to be more careful with your traffic management dragoon simulator 2013.
This sort of buggy behavior isn't appreciated for an esport though, or during actual play.
It isn't visible to a spectator when marines manage to knab an oracle that randomly stopped in place due to an overkill.
|
On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote: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 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. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. If my English is that bad that it was not understandable, excuse me. Second point is right but it is subjective. Granted, gameplays of CS and CS:GO IIRC do not differ nearly enough in general, so those 'small' features make it a game. Now that raises a question: is SC2's gameplay that different for removal of abusive mechanics of BW (yes, i am going to call moving shot in it's BW version and especially (!!!) muta stacking abusive mechanic, and that's just a misinformed opinion, so whatever) to be an issue. Answer for yourself.
But you use muta stacking argument, no one says to incorporate 11 muta 1 overlord as zerg main harass option. That's like going borderline, the argument is not BW OR NOT BW. It is look at tiny detail in BW and look how it changes current sc2 outlook. In fact maybe there is a silver lining here we are all missing because we jump into BW vs SC2 pointless debate. I for one would gladly welcome moving shot mechanic and more air dynamism in sc2, but i don't request anyone to bring sair vs scourge ZvP metagame. Not saying i wouldnt like that but maybe there is something more to oracles, vikings or corruptors with small silly changes.
Blizzard sometimes does not hide their intentions and from long time ago (since 2011) we heard that corruptor and overseer are "failed units"(my wording), maybe there is some behind the scenes mechanic that would suddenly ramp up air dynamics and then would actually make a green light for certain interesting buffs/nerfs to happen. Dunno im just wildly speculating. Im sorry that i'm not interested in philosophical discussions ala BW or not to BW or is bug good or bad, this is not the point. Lalush may use that wording because he loves BW, but if some people only see his arguments for that, then they may unknowingly trash a possibly great idea in making.
|
On October 31 2013 21:29 RampancyTW 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 :3On 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 The bolded is extra-hilarious to me. Engine mechanic in SC2 exists which allows for players with good control to get more out of their units than other players who don't control their units in this fashion. However, it does so in a different way than in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. Another example: clumped vikings do not kite nearly as well as spread vikings. A player who keeps his vikings spread will be able to kite far better than a player who just clumps them up with no special care or attention. This allows the better player to get more usage out of his units. However, it does so in a different way than it would in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. You can wash-rinse-repeat this process for sooo many mechanics in SC2.
This is why I think peoples' complaints of "You're just saying it should be more like BW" are invalid.
Look at the turret change in isolation. It looks, and I imagine feels better than having an immortal turn 180 -> walk -> turn 180 -> fire. Is there a reason for it? Obviously games aren't meant to mimic reality, but what the fuck is the point of a tank having a turret if it's gotta rotate it every time anyways? Who gives a damn what it did in Brood War, unless it is a functional design choice for a reason, why?
Oracle overkill example. Obviously a bug. Has nothing to do with brood war.
Viking / banshee / air unit attack points. Means they have to stop, aim (presumably?) and then fire, which means they can't kite and can't be microed fluently by design. Not expressly bad, but certainly not an invalid criticism purely because brood war existed.
Overkill and unit clumping/spreading directly interfering with specific micro. As you mention, probably better / easier to control in its current state than it was in BW (wouldn't know; didn't play.) but people are discounting it as a valid criticism on the grounds that "HEY YOU JUST WANT IT TO BE BROOD WAR" No! Units controlling like shit is a valid criticism regardless of if they controlled even more like shit in BW, and having to micro against a feature that was implemented to minimize the impact / possibilities of micro (overkill prevention) is a pretty lulzy thing. Just as "because brood war" isn't a valid reason to suggest a change, it also isn't a valid reason to discount one.
Fortunately, LaLush was just using Brood War as a reference to help people understand, while criticizing mechanics of SC2 within SC2 that have to do with SC2. (And then showing 20+ minutes of why micro is important from a spectator's perspective, in one of the most micro-able games around D: )
|
Amazing video, I have personally never touched broodwar or any blizzard game before starcraft2, but this is really cool to see.
Seeing how cool some of the micro was in BW and how some of the changes in the editor work out just makes my jaw reach the floor.
|
I think there are some good points made in the video but as others have mentioned there is no saying what might or might not affect sc2 positively from appyling all of these changes. It needs to be tested carefully before implemented.
First of all, I watch a lot of Brood War and I have enjoyed the game more than sc2 for a bit now. Also, thank you for the good research Lalush. You're really doing an interesting job. However, I do have some critical notes.
1) Turrets. There is a risk that there will be an undue buff to some units, I am thinking primarily about the Colossus. Colossus are prone to moving back and forth to snipe off parts of enemy armies, coupled with their ability to move up and down cliffs and to stand without taking up space in armies it might be too much. I do like the idea of tanks and immortals being more microable and for players to gain a stronger defensive position with them.
2) Is air clumping necessarily a bad thing, then? I think this is typical of some of the BW/sc2 debates. The argument is usually "BW is a better game because it is SO HARD!" So why would someone using a pro-BW argument say that the need to pre-split groups of Oracles so that they will do better should be replaced with more of a moving shot? Perhaps the difficulty in micro is about pre-splitting and moving around squads of 2-3 oracles on a screen rather than using Patrol-micro versions. I don't see how that is necessarily a better form of micro for the game.
3) Damage point. Once more, we have to sort out the arguments here. I think if there is any game where units behave stupidly and stand around instead of attacking it's BW. And sure, we can say that that is a fault of BW. It appears however that some of the arguments that Lalush is making rather says that sc2 has a clunky unit feature somehow contrary to what things are like in BW. Are you saying that this is only an argument for air units, Lalush? I think that's a better approach, if so.
Haven't parts of the arguments in the sc2 vs BW debate been related to how units in sc2 aren't sluggish at all, but are rather just too good and too smart in comparison to their BW cousins? Meaning that it is easy to walk up a ramp and kill off a base in moments, whereas in BW it is much harder and required more. I often hear very contradictory arguments to why BW should be better than sc2.
|
On October 31 2013 21:37 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:31 Arco wrote:On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote: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 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. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. What would Tribes been without skiing? A mediocre team based FPS game with a few cool mechanics. Skiing is one of the things that made Tribes 2 and other Tribes titles a skillful game. The same is true with SC1 micro. I was pumped for years for SC2 because I was hoping it'd be an updated StarCraft with cool new units and mechanics, but still the StarCraft we knew and loved. It is getting so far from that... Is skiing a bug though? Never heard about Tribes, so have no clue. And if skiing a bug, was Tribes so bad of a game, that skiing was in fact the only good thing about it ;3? Ah, nvm, FPS, well FPS are at the core of a genre are so look-alike that stuff like skiing can actually be game-defining.
Yes skiing was a bug that you could abuse by using a script.
|
On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:29 RampancyTW wrote: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 :3On 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 The bolded is extra-hilarious to me. Engine mechanic in SC2 exists which allows for players with good control to get more out of their units than other players who don't control their units in this fashion. However, it does so in a different way than in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. Another example: clumped vikings do not kite nearly as well as spread vikings. A player who keeps his vikings spread will be able to kite far better than a player who just clumps them up with no special care or attention. This allows the better player to get more usage out of his units. However, it does so in a different way than it would in BW. Therefore it is BAD DESIGN AND MUST BE PATCHED OUT. You can wash-rinse-repeat this process for sooo many mechanics in SC2. This is why I think peoples' complaints of "You're just saying it should be more like BW" are invalid. Look at the turret change in isolation. It looks, and I imagine feels better than having an immortal turn 180 -> walk -> turn 180 -> fire. Is there a reason for it? Obviously games aren't meant to mimic reality, but what the fuck is the point of a tank having a turret if it's gotta rotate it every time anyways? Who gives a damn what it did in Brood War, unless it is a functional design choice for a reason, why? Oracle overkill example. Obviously a bug. Has nothing to do with brood war. Viking / banshee / air unit attack points. Means they have to stop, aim (presumably?) and then fire, which means they can't kite and can't be microed fluently by design. Not expressly bad, but certainly not an invalid criticism purely because brood war existed. Overkill and unit clumping/spreading directly interfering with specific micro. As you mention, probably better / easier to control in its current state than it was in BW (wouldn't know; didn't play.) but people are discounting it as a valid criticism on the grounds that "HEY YOU JUST WANT IT TO BE BROOD WAR" No! Units controlling like shit is a valid criticism regardless of if they controlled even more like shit in BW, and having to micro against a feature that was implemented to minimize the impact / possibilities of micro (overkill prevention) is a pretty lulzy thing. Just as "because brood war" isn't a valid reason to suggest a change, it also isn't a valid reason to discount one. Fortunately, LaLush was just using Brood War as a reference to help people understand, while criticizing mechanics of SC2 within SC2 that have to do with SC2. (And then showing 20+ minutes of why micro is important from a spectator's perspective, in one of the most micro-able games around D
I think one of the issues some people are having is the the air unit separation bug could have been pointed out without referencing BW. The turret tracking could have been done with only a minor reference to BW and with the 20 minutes of old BW video. The issues raised are valid, but the delivery seem very focused on BW. Some people are a bit tired of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
