EPTDepth of Micro - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TimKim0713
Korea (South)221 Posts
| ||
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
On May 10 2015 14:33 BisuDagger wrote: Nooooo. Don't bump brilliant threads that should have changed the game as we know it. Next thing we know the hydraroach thread will return and elephant in the room article becomes relevant as we all wait for league of legends players to retire and flood the sc2 scene. Well the hydraroach was already in beta for a while, it was called the ravager  | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
It might finally make the tank a little more menacing in its unsieged mode. They are so very fragile. Hopefully it won't get rejected for "functionally overlapping with the cyclone", lol. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
It is mind-baffling that when we had the dragoon pathing AI we had to fight against in SC BW, now in SC2 the units are even more unresponsive. And apparently it is all intended, as turning off a variable in the editor fixes half the problem. When the beta was released I thought the problems were hardcoded into the engine, and they are to some extent. But you got to wonder in what state of mind these people are to deliberately make the decision to make a unit clumsy to control. Of course, the Dayvie comment was rhetoric and a PR line aimed at people who aren't even part of the debate, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Whatever he really thinks. we will not be in the known until stuff leaks. When Pillars was fired/left in frustration(we still don't know) and CowGoMoo leaked stuff from the dev team, even before MBS discussions, we could have known how this would all turn out. We know from leaks that for a long time Dayvie tried to argue like a TL user/SC BW player from back then would argue. And remember that back then those were people playing an archaic game. Even more than it is now, it was odd to still play a game that was more than 2 years old. So it was David Kim vs entire SC2 dev team. On simple things like why a map needed to have a defendable natural expansion or on why Island maps are bad. Of course eventually he gave up and ever since they decided he was trained enough to interact with the public, ever since beta, he pulls the company line. Fact that he is still there means he has accepted his actual role in Blizzard. Or he would have left like Pillars did a long time ago. | ||
|
MaximilianKohler
122 Posts
is terrible. There are no downsides to implementing these changes. Wait, is pathing mentioned in the "depth of micro" video? I forgot. Anyway, I think pathing is one of best improvements that could be made: | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
| ||
|
Vilanoil
Germany47 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:31 mantequilla wrote: First video is 1 hour long. Which part are you talking about? probably that part https://youtu.be/vw7ZNQe24KM?t=46m35s | ||
|
Meerel
Germany713 Posts
and broodwar didnt get big because it was a casual game...it just doesnt make sense | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On June 13 2015 19:51 Meerel wrote: i dont get why 'the casual player' still plays such a big role in their decision making. if no one plays the game but the hardcore community what does it matter anymore. and broodwar didnt get big because it was a casual game...it just doesnt make sense People who are only watching this game are "casual player" according Blizzard's lexicon. They want to increase the viewing experience. Playing experience is secondary. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On June 13 2015 19:51 Meerel wrote: i dont get why 'the casual player' still plays such a big role in their decision making. if no one plays the game but the hardcore community what does it matter anymore. and broodwar didnt get big because it was a casual game...it just doesnt make sense His explanation also makes no sense because if it's someone only a "hardcore" player can see then it goes over the casuals head doesn't affect their enjoyment and enhances the hardcore SC2 players enjoyment? I'm also not quite sure how more fluid movement on a unit allowing a professional player to take advantage of isn't visible, he stated earlier that someone moving their oracle about and finding openings is visible to the "casual" so surely doing something that only makes it even more visible does better. I could understand if they had to go and rework the whole system but all they have to do is change a few numbers and it could be done in less than an hour. (Obviously balancing it will take a bit longer but it would still be done before beta) and they said in that 2013 video they're checking the state of balance daily or weekly, so if you're checking that often it should be easy to implement and monitor. Pretty sure the people in Lotv beta are the "hardcore" since they've either go to have been top 20% (not saying much but most casuals won't get there) or bought a virtual ticket. Could Psione or blizzard just say we know this is a big issue but for us to implement this we want to see X amount of people supporting the idea. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
Obviously Blizzard likes the game as it is now, otherwise they would have changed. SC2 still doesn't have low latency. And with Dota and LoL also not having it, it doesn't seem to be an issue. What is the point of making AI scripting more responsive when there still is a build in delay. I don't understand why people are still debating. SC2 is what it is. Take it or leave it. As a consumer you only talk with your wallet. It is the hardcore people buying SC2, not the casuals. So yes, SC2 has to appeal more to casuals. The hardcore people still buy it. It doesn't matter how much you dislike it as long as you buy it. That is all that matters. When Dayvie is there on stage, he is thinking about that, along with all of the media training and the cash he is getting for telling the audience the line Blizzard Marketing Department taught him to recite. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:17 Dingodile wrote: People who are only watching this game are "casual player" according Blizzard's lexicon. They want to increase the viewing experience. Playing experience is secondary. No ability or unit or balance patch could increase the viewing experience as much as the depth of micro video suggestions, or a better economy. Improving the player experience and viewer experience goes hand in hand. | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:17 Dingodile wrote: People who are only watching this game are "casual player" according Blizzard's lexicon. They want to increase the viewing experience. Playing experience is secondary. This is the key problem with blizzard's approach. It feels a lot like SC2 was an experiment to see if building a game around the spectator experience would work, which has lead to a lot of the problems with the game. In a weird way I kinda wish the competitive scene had crashed and burnt before LotV since then blizzard could just focus on making their game fun to play. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
One example we have today is the MS core. It takes skill to attack with it on the move without slowing it down at all. But it doesn't really look like anything for a person not having experience using the mothership core, or understands how it can slow down if you're not microing it perfectly. It might just look like the player has move commanded it over the enemy, shooting like a phoenix would. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
ex. It's hard to see why Bomber does so well, because his micro is not at all his strongest suit, so for a newer viewer you might think he sucks, since there's so many micro 'mistakes.' But in reality he is winning by doing everything else right. As for the responsiveness of units, I'm up for discussing single unit changes, like the Siege Tank one, but an across the board increase of responsiveness is not happening, since it removes character from the unit. Having an entire army composed of almost every single unit in the game and just stutterstepping everything back at the same time, because they have no delay/or other kind of encumbrance, is also something that is not pleasant for the eye. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
I also think that the casual viewers aren't as stupid as some people think. They know that macro is a big part of Starcraft and hearing the caster say "I can't believe this, Bomber is actually maxed out before the 12 minute mark and his 2-2 upgrades are about to complete" is very exciting and people know to appreciate it. It's stuff like that that is unique to Starcraft, that has to be maintained and build upon. Target the audience that wants to see RTS and are fed up with mobas, there are enough of them to have hundreds of thousands of viewers. The game just has to be good, less frustrating and sadly f2p (multiplayer). | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On June 13 2015 21:50 ejozl wrote: Exactly, it's also why they don't want the macro part of the game to be the biggest part, because for a newer spectator/casual it's hard to grasp and there's nothing flashy about it at all. ex. It's hard to see why Bomber does so well, because his micro is not at all his strongest suit, so for a newer viewer you might think he sucks, since there's so many micro 'mistakes.' But in reality he is winning by doing everything else right. As for the responsiveness of units, I'm up for discussing single unit changes, like the Siege Tank one, but an across the board increase of responsiveness is not happening, since it removes character from the unit. Having an entire army composed of almost every single unit in the game and just stutterstepping everything back at the same time, because they have no delay/or other kind of encumbrance, is also something that is not pleasant for the eye. It removes character for the unit? In what way? Making a unit more responsive and allowing people with high levels of micro to really focus on making that unit do the maximum amount of damage isn't adding character but taking it away? You want to just watch a unit a move because that's the most efficient way of getting damage from it? Just because everything can stutterstep effectively doesn't mean that you can just hotkey your whole army and stutterstep it back and isn't that pretty much all TvZ (Considered the best MU by casual and hardcore players) they stutterstep and split. The point of a caster, is to make points that appeal to people who have no clue and people who have knowledge at a higher level, if you've watched enough bomber games most casters will point out how amazing bombers macro and tell them to watch his supply count ect, the game shouldn't be restrained and handicapped for us higher level players because of spectators, the casters can pander/explain to them how incredible that micro move was if they don't understand. | ||
|
plotspot
800 Posts
the example with the tank was kind of impaling. Normal tanks in the real world behave like BW tanks and not SC2 tanks. yea, now I know why Sc2 units sometimes feel static or awkward, when I compare it to a BW game where everything just flows better, although logically units shouldn't spin around their axis that fast. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
It removes character for the unit? In what way? Making a unit more responsive and allowing people with high levels of micro to really focus on making that unit do the maximum amount of damage isn't adding character but taking it away? You want to just watch a unit a move because that's the most efficient way of getting damage from it? Just because everything can stutterstep effectively doesn't mean that you can just hotkey your whole army and stutterstep it back and isn't that pretty much all TvZ (Considered the best MU by casual and hardcore players) they stutterstep and split. It removes character, if every unit is a Marine. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On June 13 2015 22:37 ejozl wrote: It removes character, if every unit is a Marine. It removes character, if every unit is an A-move. See? an easy argument with the same empty background. I think it is not bad having more units able to have viable kiting, since, in fact, only Stim Marines/Marauders, Reapers and Stalkers are able to perform kiting relatively efficiently. But bio excels at stuttersteping because units clump up a ton, a big mass of supply can be fit in a tiny space, and it has high DPS density, with a very good range (5-6) moving at fast speed (3.375). So it has good conditions to perform continous stutterstep, having a high skill cap micro to incrase their strength in teamfights. However, other ranged units can't do that. Hydras have a big damage point and move relatively slow to make kiting almost irrelevant on them, same applies to Ghosts and old Adepts (now they have standard damage point and they feel more usable). Immortal and Tank Mode turret is also another big delay that makes them unresponsive and basicaly A-move. Quite fun to say that both Hydras and Adepts are also infantry units like Marines and Marauders, specially Hydras, but they can't stuttertep as MM does. Is it reasonable? Granting responsiveness to a unit doesn't turn them into Marines because they are limited by speed, size, cost, and so. However makes units usually more usable vs other units. A good example is tracking turrets, that would add defensive strenght vs slow Roaches/slow Hydras. It simply adds new control options. Think of this example: I'm a Protoss and I'm moving with 3 Immortals on the map. I have 3 valuable units with good resistance that I would like to micro to minimize their exposition, using my skill to favor the outcome of the fight. Can I? Not much, because Immortals have dumb turrets + damage point and they move slow. They are quite unresponsive to do that. Improving it and removing clunkyness would not turn immortals to marines. But that also applies reverse-wise. Improving some responsiveness would not add much in some units that can't efficiently take their advanatge effectively, like short ranged units as Archons, Roaches or even Adepts, since their limited range/speed values already condition them to be taking damage, so, in a large scale fight, there is little you could do with improved responsiveness. | ||
| ||
