EPTStarbow - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ANLProbe
667 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:13 Laertes wrote: Guys, I've been trying to contact Bisu somehow, with a post in korean explaining explicitly was starbow is and wondering what he thinks/will he play. I think it would be cool for him to at least know about it, so we can get his opinion. I tried for 30 minutes to somehow register of afreeca but being unable to read anything was too huge a barrier and it wouldn't accept any of the usernames I put. Quite frankly, I'd like to send the message myself. We don't want another Jaedong incident, although bisu strikes me as one to appreciate this more than Jaedong perhaps. IF anyone has any leads please PM me, there's gotta be somewhere I can contact bisu in a (semi) accessible way. If anyone knows how to contact bisu and I can't figure out how to get ahold of him myself, I can give you a message a korean friend of mine may be able to translate. Wish me luck in the future, but for now I'm too tired to try anymore. EDIT: Also Idra, you're not gonna like this, but a lot of the limitations are in the SC2 engine. There are workarounds, but editor work is grueling and workarounds can sometimes be so convoluted they are hard to figure out. For a while we couldn't figure out how to make the reaver work. Then we realized if the scarabs are workers and the units they hit are minerals, the scarabs would chase units as if they were a worker(thats why scarabs have the same footprint as workers.) im pretty on board with blaming things on sc2 actually | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:30 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Yeah, frankly I can't understand why people want to go back to a more Brood War style of unit movement. SC2 unit movement is just so crisp and clean. I've played all those other games you've mentioned and I don't even really bother trying to control units individually, there's no point. I don't know, it depends on what you are used to. I got sick of SC2 at one point and started to play WC3 again and at first I felt frustrated by the pathing because the units don't always smoothly move to where you want them. However, I realized I could manually move my units around and recreate the smooth movement patterns and after a few games I already thought it was superior to the SC2 pathfinding in terms of gameplay. (of course I played WC3 for five years so it was easy to readjust) | ||
|
Nerevar
547 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:30 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Yeah, frankly I can't understand why people want to go back to a more Brood War style of unit movement. SC2 unit movement is just so crisp and clean. I've played all those other games you've mentioned and I don't even really bother trying to control units individually, there's no point. The pathingfinding in SC2 is lovely and all, arguably one of the best I've seen in any RTS, but the clumping does mess with the gameplay a lot, forcing a lot of undesirable design decisions and compromises. But I still wouldn't see BW as a paragon of pathfinding implementation. Heck, I don't think pathfinding is very well done in the vast majority of RTS games at all. I still laugh whenever my tanks and other ground units start clipping into each other in games like Company of Heroes and Command and Conquer. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:41 Nerevar wrote: The pathingfinding in SC2 is lovely and all, arguably one of the best I've seen in any RTS, but the clumping does mess with the gameplay a lot, forcing a lot of undesirable design decisions and compromises. But I still wouldn't see BW as a paragon of pathfinding implementation. Heck, I don't think pathfinding is very well done in the vast majority of RTS games at all. I still laugh whenever my tanks and other ground units start clipping into each other in games like Company of Heroes and Command and Conquer. oh god... naval units in Red Alert 3. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
How about tanks on Company of Heroes: "Shoot! Shoot, shoot, shoooooooot you asshole!! No, don't back up! Why are you caught on a lamp post? You're a tank!" | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:51 Plansix wrote: How about tanks on Company of Heroes: "Shoot! Shoot, shoot, shoooooooot you asshole!! No, don't back up! Why are you caught on a lamp post? You're a tank!" God that game...so frustrating. I get the feeling sometimes people on this forum don't play RTS games other than Blizzard ones and don't realize just how GOOD things are in SC2 rofl | ||
|
Nerevar
547 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:51 Plansix wrote: How about tanks on Company of Heroes: "Shoot! Shoot, shoot, shoooooooot you asshole!! No, don't back up! Why are you caught on a lamp post? You're a tank!" I tell my tank to attack something, and it rams into the enemy and starts firing at point blank range. I tell my tank to back up, and it completely turns around and exposes its squishy ass. I tell two tanks to go somewhere, and they cuddle and clip and form an archon. | ||
|
Ahli
Germany355 Posts
On January 16 2014 22:15 Orek wrote: [G] ~8% faster gas mining I've done a similar research on Starbow mod maps. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vqtQQBb.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YRis8Q9.png) Normal SC2: 4 gas mined per trip, 2500 total gas Starbow Mod: 8 gas mined per trip, 5000 total gas (until it depeletes) So, theoretically, inefficiency should be the same, but they differ for some reason. As you can see, this gas inefficiency problem is much bigger in starbow mod. Even worse, there is only 1 vespene geyser per base in starbow instead of 2 in normal SC2. Therefore, players can't actively avoid inefficient gas if they spawn at worse locations. For example, according to my research, Circuit Breaker on 1 base: Top-right spawning location mines 6.7% faster than top-left spawning location. on 2 bases: Top-right spawning location mines 5.9% faster than top-left spawning location. and on 2 bases: Both spawning locations on Bloody Ridge mine 13.3% faster than top-left spawning location on Circuit Breaker. Top-right players' winrate would be higher than top-left players' on Circuit Breaker. A certain build executed on Bloody Ridge may not be possible on Circuit Breaker due to significantly slower gas mining rate. I think something needs to be done about it. Currently, starbow is far worse than normal SC2 in this field. Thank you for doing this. I've made my own tests now and the result is... well... not acceptable, if you are only mining with 3 workers (as you do in normal sc2). I'm experiencing a maximum difference of 31.25 gas per minute using 3 workers. It's depending on the geyser position. I tried and it's not just fixable with altering the footprint as it would require the assimilator to be a huge cross shaped structure to saturate everything with 3 workers. However, 4 workers result in a full saturation: ![[image loading]](http://i.snag.gy/mkQlf.jpg) ^ numbers are gas remaining, started with 5k at the 1 minute mark. So, maybe having a 3-4 worker saturation depending on the angle from your main building is acceptable. Imagine a straight vertical/horizontal line from the inner side of the geyser towards the Nexus/CC/Hatch. - If the line clearly crosses the Nexus, you require 3 workers. - If the line doesn't clearly cross it, you require 4 workers. This means that symmetrical geyser placements on the maps should yield in the same rate. So, we could see this as superior to sc2 right now, if we accept a 3-4 worker saturation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:55 Nerevar wrote: I tell my tank to attack something, and it rams into the enemy and starts firing at point blank range. I tell my tank to back up, and it completely turns around and exposes its squishy ass. I tell two tanks to go somewhere, and they cuddle and clip and form an archon. Tank cuddling is something we never have to deal with in sc2. Or that the pathfinding of those cuddling tanks would be so fucked that you would have to pry them apart with 80 clicks, like two dogs in heat. | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:04 IdrA wrote: to someone with no knowledge of the technical side of things, it seems like larger collision size would be the answer? it makes things a bit clunkier as units will run into each other when it doesnt look like they should, but at least it doesnt force any movement or take any control away from the player. seems like a good enough tradeoff for less clumping. I experimented with this solution some years ago and the issue was the collision with terrain. It was okay with small units but larger units wouldn't be able to pass small ramps or tight passages. | ||
|
Nerevar
547 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:01 Plansix wrote: Tank cuddling is something we never have to deal with in sc2. Or that the pathfinding of those cuddling tanks would be so fucked that you would have to pry them apart with 80 clicks, like two dogs in heat. Well... | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
Haaaaahahahahaha, that's hilarious | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On January 17 2014 04:30 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Yeah, frankly I can't understand why people want to go back to a more Brood War style of unit movement. SC2 unit movement is just so crisp and clean. I've played all those other games you've mentioned and I don't even really bother trying to control units individually, there's no point. More to the point, I don't think it is good for SB and the developers' time to mess around with that at this stage of the game. It is the Beta, and it is starting to get significant attention. Playing around with units and statistics and upgrades etc is all good at this stage. But, messing around with a core aspect of the game like unit clumping and pathing is not, IMO. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:10 aZealot wrote: More to the point, I don't think it is good for SB and the developers' time to mess around with that at this stage of the game. It is the Beta, and it is starting to get significant attention. Playing around with units and statistics and upgrades etc is all good at this stage. But, messing around with a core aspect of the game like unit clumping and pathing is not, IMO. Sure, I suppose it's too late to make changes to that sort of thing now. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:10 aZealot wrote: More to the point, I don't think it is good for SB and the developers' time to mess around with that at this stage of the game. It is the Beta, and it is starting to get significant attention. Playing around with units and statistics and upgrades etc is all good at this stage. But, messing around with a core aspect of the game like unit clumping and pathing is not, IMO. Not this again. People relearned the game from scratch at least once for sbow already, they'll relearn it again if they have to/ the mod is worth it. Many already have. This isn't the first iteration of bow. This mod isn't about to start making its creators money. There is absolutely nothing at stake. Nothing prevents them from making sweeping changes except for the feeling that they've already almost nailed it (and I don't think they should feel that comfortable yet; we're still in the honeymoon phase) | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
No I dont think it is. We are really asking for a very MINOR change in pathing, nothing that would substancionally change the game. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:32 NukeD wrote: @ KrazyTrumpet No I dont think it is. We are really asking for a very MINOR change in pathing, nothing that would substancionally change the game. You say that, but I'm pretty sure that "minor" change affects so much in regards to balance and how you manage your army. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:02 Superouman wrote: I experimented with this solution some years ago and the issue was the collision with terrain. It was okay with small units but larger units wouldn't be able to pass small ramps or tight passages. could it be selectively implemented? clumping isnt as big of an issue with large units anyway as aoe spells arent as big a deal vs them | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 17 2014 05:38 IdrA wrote: could it be selectively implemented? clumping isnt as big of an issue with large units anyway as aoe spells arent as big a deal vs them Collision size can be changed per unit, it's not a global modifier. | ||
| ||
