Depth of Micro - Page 41

On November 07 2013 04:42 LaLuSh wrote:


No delay on Marauder. No delay on Muta.

Less delay on marine, zergling, zealot.

Doesn't explain much aside from Blizzard being inconsistent in their design (if latency were the reason).

On November 07 2013 06:31 Laertes wrote:
You wanna see Reavers with perfect AI? Watch some Starbow vods, Starbow helps to disprove a huge amount of the bullshit in this threads. Vods can be found here and here. I'll be streaming here in a little bit.

On November 07 2013 06:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Yeah, but each "unit" in GO is only able to do 1 action and nothing else. There is no dynamic back and forth, you either complete the territory and your opponent loses all his pieces or you simply fill up the board and have to count points. Now, the process of filling up the board is dynamic and entertaining, but for the most part it is build up to 200/200 and everything dies in 1-2 actions.

But GO is really the only board game that does that while still being interesting.

On November 07 2013 22:52 Laertes wrote:


Yes, but Chess is widely considered deeper than Go. Chess is like the Dota of its genre, the ultimate formula for a game that takes years to master and still has not been figured out with the help of computers!(Fun fact: People are starting to understand the psychology of computers, while once they seemed invincible, computers have their own psychology and weaknesses sort of like humans. In fact, computers are so solid that they lack the ability to "see" in complex positions. Their weaknesses revolve around tactics, they are actually really bad at seeing tactics if there is more than just a few in the position and they have longterm subtle attributes that make the win really complicated. Also, modern computers are really bad at openings, their openings are not always correct. The stronger the computer and the more time the humans programming them have spent on lines, the less of an issue this is, because the entire problem comes down to human laziness in programming opening lines)

On November 07 2013 22:52 Laertes wrote:


Yes, but Chess is widely considered deeper than Go. Chess is like the Dota of its genre, the ultimate formula for a game that takes years to master and still has not been figured out with the help of computers!(Fun fact: People are starting to understand the psychology of computers, while once they seemed invincible, computers have their own psychology and weaknesses sort of like humans. In fact, computers are so solid that they lack the ability to "see" in complex positions. Their weaknesses revolve around tactics, they are actually really bad at seeing tactics if there is more than just a few in the position and they have longterm subtle attributes that make the win really complicated. Also, modern computers are really bad at openings, their openings are not always correct. The stronger the computer and the more time the humans programming them have spent on lines, the less of an issue this is, because the entire problem comes down to human laziness in programming opening lines)

On November 07 2013 23:55 ETisME wrote:

what?? where did you read that?
Chess is NOT deeper than Go.
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/ancient-boardgame-more-complex-deeper-chess-microsoft-researchers-295.html
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=73453

the super computer now only can beat a mid tier pro-Go player
http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html

fun fact:
the design of Go bend in with eastern philosophy and culture elements (Yin Yang - that's why the pieces are black/white, board is square and pieces are round!)

or even a simple TL thread pretty much thinks Go is a harder game over all
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=118340&currentpage=3

also to not derail completely, I agree with the poster above me completely.
SC2 should be compared with sport, not chess.
Too many people relate tactics/strategy with chess.
Sports contain a certain depth in strategy too (simple example, from soccar players wasting time when they are a few goals ahead to each individual tactics in how to get the positional advantage)

On November 08 2013 06:01 Traceback wrote:
What if neither BW or SC2 is perfect and we could combine the best of both into something that is even better?

Everyone seems focused on whether one thing was better than the other. Can't we just agree that BW had micro that would be exciting to watch in SC2 and therefore help the viewer experience? This thread should be about "Is X is better than Y?". It should be about "How can we combine the best of both to make something truly epic?"

On November 08 2013 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
Red Alert was terrible? I never played myself but I thought it was highly regarded historically among RTS games?

On November 08 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Because, sadly, good gameplay does not come a la cart.

Tetris is a great game, but we can't really copy it to SC2
Red Alert was terrible--but it probably has things SC2 could add in that would improve SC2

The point being that we need to fix SC2 as a totality.

On November 07 2013 22:52 Laertes wrote:


Yes, but Chess is widely considered deeper than Go. Chess is like the Dota of its genre, the ultimate formula for a game that takes years to master and still has not been figured out with the help of computers!(Fun fact: People are starting to understand the psychology of computers, while once they seemed invincible, computers have their own psychology and weaknesses sort of like humans. In fact, computers are so solid that they lack the ability to "see" in complex positions. Their weaknesses revolve around tactics, they are actually really bad at seeing tactics if there is more than just a few in the position and they have longterm subtle attributes that make the win really complicated. Also, modern computers are really bad at openings, their openings are not always correct. The stronger the computer and the more time the humans programming them have spent on lines, the less of an issue this is, because the entire problem comes down to human laziness in programming opening lines)

On November 08 2013 12:30 Traceback wrote:

The big difference is those games are either different genres or have different gameplay flows. SC2 and BW are special in that the general flow of the game is very similar. The starting position, the mid game expansion phase etc. Yes, they are different in these ways, but when compared to other games, they are the most similar.

Remember this thread is about micro. The general creating of armies and bases is fundamentally the same between the two games. Certainly there are shifts and scaling changes, but the framework is the same. Therefore, unlike those other games, it will be much easier to adapt good things from each together. Should we expect it to work for every good thing? Of course not. However, everyone should go into this matter with the mindset that we should be trying to combine the best of both, instead of a pro-BW/anti-BW attitude, which only serves to create divisions.

If we focus on the best of both, BW and SC2, and try to adapt some of these things together, we will have progress in the game. We shouldn't be afraid of change, we should be focused on improvement. You can't improve something if you don't make changes. All too often people go to the excuse "We don't need to improve! It's good enough!". This is silly. Why should we settle for what we have if there are ways right in front of us to make the game more exciting. Making the viewing experience more exciting is never a bad thing, the key is having the right attitude when attempting to do so.

On November 08 2013 15:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Because the good things were not good in a vacuum.

I agree that air units should move similar to how they move in the video Lalush has in the OP. I agree that more units should have the numbers that the marine have. But I also know that it would make Phoenixes and Corruptors be nerfed as fuck.

When we change those, then we have to change the units they effect and so on and so forth.

It percolates throughout the entire game and it isn't as simple as "make air units move this way" since it affects more than just air units.

And no, I don't think BW and SC2 are that similar at all. UI is different, pathing is different, scale of control is different, average unit speed/map size ratio is different, damage system is different, etc...

They are conceptually very different games save for graphics and overall RTSness about them.