|
If units are more microable, great players can set themselves apart from really good ones. This will lead to great players being more consistent, which is really good for hype to build up around them. It also helps a bit with the a-move aspect of some armies containing air units such as vikings or mutas.
|
On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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 with 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. Yup.
I don't think SC2 is perfect by any means, but it really pisses me off that whenever unit behavior is difficult to control to maximum effectiveness and/or unintuitive in SC2, it is BAD BECAUSE BROODWAR. Whereas unit behavior being difficult to control to maximum effectiveness and/or unintuitive in BW, it's part of WHAT MADE BROODWAR SO MAGICAL.
Improving/changing unit behavior in SC2 because "Hey, this makes things more flexible and look more interesting!" is wonderful. Improving/changing unit behavior in SC2 because "SEE HOW DIFFERENTLY IN BEHAVES FROM HOW IT DID IN BW" is beyond obnoxious.
|
On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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.
Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous.
And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways.
|
Wonderful tech post.
Thanks L for your dedication.
|
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
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: )
1. Well, i may be invalid, but i still have a right to treat moving shot in BW and other stuff like a bug, that was copied by Blizzard in SC2's beta for the sake of.
2. Yeah, turret stuff in SC2 makes 0 sense, now that's a point, that is easy to deliver without ever referencing BW.
3. Oracle's lack of overkill*, FTFY, because that happens due to way overkill prevention works in SC2 (as some have once pointed out, overkill prevention happens with small delays between attacks of each unit in a group, you can even see attack animation started on oracle in example, but was finished right when target died.
4. I do not criticize the banshee stuff based on 'BECAUSE BROOD WAR', but because it looks and feels silly for me personally, just like insta-turn in brood war and BW's moving shot.
5. Last, but not the least, who told you that overkill prevention was implement to minimize the impact/possibilities of micro? Who told you, may i ask?
6. BW micro most of time looked and felt silly for me personally (but i am not everyone and have no right to represent opinions of anyone else but me), yet was pretty much needed for a pro-gamer after certain time and was rather mechanically demanding.
|
On October 31 2013 22:27 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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. Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous. And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways.
If you are attempting to gain support for your idea, it is a good to be aware of what might turn people off to the it. I support the OPs idea, but his delivery is overly focused on BW and has an undertone that SC2 is an "lessor" game. Thing was likely not intentional, but it has had the effect of turning off some members of the community. I can see a video that would present the exact same ideas and concepts without the extre 20 minutes of BW video and still have the same effect.
|
On October 31 2013 22:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:27 Staboteur wrote:On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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:
[quote]
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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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. Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous. And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways. If you are attempting to gain support for your idea, it is a good to be aware of what might turn people off to the it. I support the OPs idea, but his delivery is overly focused on BW and has an undertone that SC2 is an "lessor" game. Thing was likely not intentional, but it has had the effect of turning off some members of the community. I can see a video that would present the exact same ideas and concepts without the extre 20 minutes of BW video and still have the same effect.
Why not be honest and say that it's not about "turning off some members of the community" but accept that it's specifically you who shows up in every thread like this to voice this 'concern'.
|
On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell.
One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like.
|
Canada5565 Posts
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to.
|
On October 31 2013 22:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:40 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:27 Staboteur wrote:On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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:
[quote]
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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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. Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous. And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways. If you are attempting to gain support for your idea, it is a good to be aware of what might turn people off to the it. I support the OPs idea, but his delivery is overly focused on BW and has an undertone that SC2 is an "lessor" game. Thing was likely not intentional, but it has had the effect of turning off some members of the community. I can see a video that would present the exact same ideas and concepts without the extre 20 minutes of BW video and still have the same effect. Why not be honest and say that it's not about "turning off some members of the community" but accept that it's specifically you who shows up in every thread like this to voice this 'concern'.
I am not the only one saying this. There are other people in the thread who have agred with me and voiced the same criticism of the OP. And criticism is what this thead is all about.
|
On October 31 2013 22:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:27 Staboteur wrote:On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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:
[quote]
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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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. Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous. And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways. If you are attempting to gain support for your idea, it is a good to be aware of what might turn people off to the it. I support the OPs idea, but his delivery is overly focused on BW and has an undertone that SC2 is an "lessor" game. Thing was likely not intentional, but it has had the effect of turning off some members of the community. I can see a video that would present the exact same ideas and concepts without the extre 20 minutes of BW video and still have the same effect.
It doesn't really matter, I don't understand your problem with anything related to BW. I will admit that I get annoyed with people who completely shun off SC2 for BW.... but this isn't the case. The OP is simply showing how micro in SC2 can be improved, and what better example than to use BW.... I mean they are made by the same company so why not?
|
I never played BW and honestly don't know much about these things, but I feel that some of this kind of changes was made to make SC2 more esthetic. For the game to appeal to a broad audience it had to be in tune with the latest graphical development and look smooth and fresh and natural. The "clumping up" and the non-existence of turn rates would perhaps make less sense from a esthetic point of view, even if it would mean more depth in terms of micro.
You could definitely argue that they took it too far, that the game would look almost as smooth and natural even if they did all the proposed changes. It's a fine balance, on one hand the esthetics of the game, on the other the mechanical depth, and quite possibly they put to much emphasis on making it look good.
Either way, great post, they should hire you after you've finished your degree (I was studying the same program as you (or TM to be more precise) for a year before I quit ^^), or at least really consider the proposed changes. SC2 already is for hard core gamers, although much less so than BW, and they shouldn't be afraid to increase the depth of it further.
|
On October 31 2013 22:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell. One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like.
AHA! So you admit there is a BW hate thing going on! I knew it.
|
Undoubtably people will use this thread to blame you for hating sc2 and loving BW but the fact is that any critically thinking human being should be able to understand that this is just a good threat of factual statements. An in depth grounds for discussion of the apparent flaws of the sc2 engine. I couldn't more than agree with your points. I hope blizzard takes a look.
Remember, when sc1 was released there were reviews saying that the game had horrible control issues. It later turned out to be the most micro intensive game because you had to work around those issues. But the units were still fast and fun to control. I guess blizzard was scared to release a game in this day and age that what in their eyes would be "bad control". Even if it made the game better.
|
On October 31 2013 22:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell. One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like.
I agree, the only reason I dislike BW is because all the D-bags who bitch on SC2 all the time, for me the game was fine before seeing all the elitists talk about it as the best game ever all the time.
|
On October 31 2013 22:54 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:44 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell. One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like. AHA! So you admit there is a BW hate thing going on! I knew it.
No, I like BW. I watched old videos of games and find the history of the game to be super interesting. However, I like SC2 as well and I dislike how BW is used as tool people use be negative about SC2. It is possible to like something, but dislike the context in which it is being used.
|
I dont think we need BW to be negative about SC2 really.
|
On October 31 2013 22:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:27 Staboteur wrote:On October 31 2013 22:19 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:11 Staboteur wrote: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:
[quote]
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 seep ration bug could have been pointed out with 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. Avoiding referencing the game's predecessor at all to appease a small few people who are that far on the SC2 side of the SC2 / BW rift (note - being that far on either side is ridiculous; SC2 is a fantastic game, as was BW. There are things that each side could learn from the other... difference being SC2 -can- change, whereas BW will not) ... is ridiculous. And LaLush did a fine job of showing what these changes might look like in the SC2 engine, with SC2 graphics etc. If you're a viewer like me, you just stop watching at the BW montage part, 'cause I won't understand most of what's going on anyways. If you are attempting to gain support for your idea, it is a good to be aware of what might turn people off to the it. I support the OPs idea, but his delivery is overly focused on BW and has an undertone that SC2 is an "lessor" game. Thing was likely not intentional, but it has had the effect of turning off some members of the community. I can see a video that would present the exact same ideas and concepts without the extre 20 minutes of BW video and still have the same effect.
If it weren't for the BW comparison Lalush probably wouldn't have come up with this at all. Exclude the BW comparison and it's just a bunch of random proposed changes among thousands. "Hey look at this, doesn't it look cool? I think this is the way it should be" isn't a very appealing argument. Drawing inspiration from BW isn't negative. The BW videos shows how it looked in that game and that the mechanics he proposes works in practice.
If someone gets so annoyed with the undertone of BW being a better game that they can't even listen to his arguments, then the fault is with them. You shouldn't have to sugar coat your arguments in order for people to listen to your criticism of their beloved game.
|
On October 31 2013 23:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:54 NukeD wrote:On October 31 2013 22:44 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell. One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like. AHA! So you admit there is a BW hate thing going on! I knew it. No, I like BW. I watched old videos of games and find the history of the game to be super interesting. However, I like SC2 as well and I dislike how BW is used as tool people use be negative about SC2. It is possible to like something, but dislike the context in which it is being used.
BW is being used as a comparison to where SC2 can improve because we've seen it before in BW. I really dislike the comparisons but there are so many things from a viewer and amateur player point of view that I think could be done a lot better. One of the biggest complaints ever since WoL was that no race other than Terran could really micro. Well, we've seen in HoTS that at least in TvZ, both sides need to intensely micro and that makes for really awesome games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
