I understand most people will think i'm a complete moron BUT i belive the pathfinding in SC2 is too good. Pathfinding has an extremly big impact on game play. Alot more then automine for instance.
Right now a group of units in SC2 walks just like it was one unit! Apart from looking extremly goofy, boring and unrealistic it also takes away alot of the fun things possible in SC1 because of the "bad" pathfinding.
Some of the things i belive perfect pathfindigt will ruin:
- Since five Zealots walk like one and do not spread out, dancing with marines or hydras will be ruined. - Using your scv's, probes or drones in fights will be ruined. - Harrasing peon lines will be ruined since perfect pathfindig, unlimeted selection and more time will make running away with your peons really easy. - Blocking ramps with units. - If the beloved Reaver would make a return it would be ruined.
Im sure Sc1 veterans can come up with alot more things that would be ruined with perfect pathfinding!
Conclusion:
Bad pathfindig in SC1 was one of those bugs that created alot of unexpected fun, much like rocket jumping in Quake. Rocket jumping later became a feature in the following quake games and i think they should consider "bad" pathfinding a feature of SC2. I don't think they should make the units really dumb, but i think units should spread out more and not walk like one for example. I think Blizzard should keep in mind that pathfinding has a HUGE impact on gameplay!
I can understand your point, but the way they more now isn't the best formation or something like that. I think it's still hard to flank with melee units, and although the don't move single file anymore, they dont spead out either...So while this definitely makes a difference, a great deal of micro is still required.
Wtf... this post fails at logic. First of all, spreading out zealots has nothing to do with pathfinding, but it's the magic boxes that are retained in SC. The rest are so situational, and pathfinding problems are about 10 times worse than whatever mentioned.
On April 04 2008 01:37 Famehunter wrote: There is nothing more frustrating than to order a line of tanks trough your choke just to find out 2 of them made it back to your mineral line...
I agree 100%, but bad pathfinding also creates ALOT of fun.
- You're forgetting that your rines/hydras will dance better too, not only the melees are changing - You can still use workers in defense efficiently, as seen in videos, just not "buggily" efficient - Worker pathing is already perfectly ideal in SC1, I see no change - You can still block ramps, why not? - Actually I think the scarab would be greatly favored by better pathing, it was what screwed it
Really, you still have the same micro opportunities but it will just feel more natural now. Not to mention it opens more opportunities now. Since you won't get your goons as stuck while trying to hit and run. The game looks awesomely fluid, faster and fun to micro in the videos. You don't wanna change that.
I feel the most optimal formation to balance between stupidity and over-intelligence is to have all units move in a parallel formation to one another. So, once you have your formation set up, it will be preserved as long as they're moving on open ground. If they have to go into a choke point, then they should go in a straight line and reconverge in their formation on the other side provided they have room to. That is essentially how units work in starcraft right now if you use the magical box principle. If you violate the magical box, the units will march in a straight line and cluster into a tight ball once they reach the destination - I suppose it would be logical if they still did this if you clicked on a point inside of your selection's formation, but not when travelling across map. I imagine they'd have still use magical boxes to set some threshold for the group (probably a screen's size) as well so that a unit crossmap doesn't get confused, but it'd be nice if having a few stray units outside of the magical box didn't cause the whole system to fall apart. Don't really know how you could program this, but there has to be some way.
I get really annoyed when I have all my goons in a nice line and they get all messed up when I move them along. From what I've seen in the videos so far, units work like Warcraft 3 where they converge into neat little boxes. This make them easy targets for AOE spam and it's probably the reason they feel they need to nerf psi storm so much, and also why they had to set damage caps on AOE spells in warcraft 3. I strongly believe that the AOE overpowered in old versions of wc3 had to do more with the unit pathfinding causing units to cluster - unless you issued orders to units one by one (which is what people seemed to end up doing at pro level) it was impossible to keep your units spread out.
What really worries me about SC2 pathing is that melee units seem to have some sort of auto-surround behavior that, while it looks cool, I think is going to ultimately going to be discarded. If ranged units also do the equivalent action of automatically focus fire then I'm going to flip my shit.
So you want units to be more clumsily basically, fuck that. I want to be able to move away my workers from harassment easily, not get frustrated because of retarded clumsiness. Also moving lots of units through a small space is a fucking ordeal in sc1, no single argument you posted justifies bringing that shit back.
I mean as a player I want my units to move intelligently like I'd want them to, I still want to micro myself but what you suggest is just making shit frustrating. (especially for newer players who'll just play another game instead)
On April 04 2008 01:43 VIB wrote: - You're forgetting that your rines/hydras will dance better too, not only the melees are changing - You can still use workers in defense efficiently, as seen in videos, just not "buggily" efficient - Worker pathing is already perfectly ideal in SC1, I see no change - You can still block ramps, why not? - Actually I think the scarab would be greatly favored by better pathing, it was what screwed it
Really, you still have the same micro opportunities but it will just feel more natural now. Not to mention it opens more opportunities now. Since you won't get your goons as stuck while trying to hit and run. The game looks awesomely fluid, faster and fun to micro in the videos. You don't wanna change that.
- Rines/hydras do not need better dancing abilities. - The buggily efficient worker fighting is whats fun, otherwise workers are just normal extremly bad figting units. - If you move to a different mineral patch maybe, but not if you want to move thru other peons to ground. - You can block a ramp with one scv from a zealot or dt. This will of course not be possible with perfect pathfinding.
I don't agree it will open alot of new opportunities. I think it will take away alot thou.
Magic boxes are a huge concern. Currently, they are not in, so all stuff clumps like hell. The reason for the storm nerf, I guess, was not smartcast, but "improved" pathfinding.
The: - improved pathfinding, - unit clumping, - very powerful AI attack move, - long attack animations, - changes (due to game engine) regarding air acceleration and deceleration (instant on attack) on air units - stacking changes (game engine) on air units,
are major gamebreakers at the moment which puts everything they've said so far about making a competitive game a lie.
If the player has very little room to improve upon the AI control aids, then it won't matter how pretty or cool features they have. The skill gap between players will be lowered and also the inherit race imbalances will be prevalent. In broodwar, the racial imbalance is a small concern simply due to the high "player input ceiling".
I've voiced this several times but still the major concern seem to amount to - "OMG MBS SUCKS!" Sure MBS changes a lot of things about the game, but it is smaller when compared to the fact that it matter less who is behind the controls.
For some reason Blizzard thinks that unit abilities is what micro amounts to. Micro is simply put all micromanaging tasks which gets a bigger benefit than allowing the AI to sort it out on its own. While lots of units in broodwar were simple movers and shooters, they all had different characteristics and stats which made them all play differently and utilized a lot more effiently in combat when controlled directly: - Direct versus animated attack. - Instant projectile hit versus travelling projectiles. - Cooldown. - Hitpoints. - Unit sizes. - Acceleration. - Speed. - Grouping behaviour. - Formation behaviour. - Pathing behaviour. - etc.
I think the pathfinding is fine; its just the grouping of the units that irks me. Its as if theyre moving in box formation, which makes them suspectible to splash, and may hinder overall movement. But Ill have to see how fast it goes into that form first.
On April 04 2008 03:59 useLess wrote: I think the pathfinding is fine; its just the grouping of the units that irks me. Its as if theyre moving in box formation, which makes them suspectible to splash, and may hinder overall movement. But Ill have to see how fast it goes into that form first.
The grouping of units and magic boxes are both part of pathfinding. Blizzard do not have programmers doing magic boxes and grouping of units. This is the pathfinding people.
This is getting really, REALLY ridicolus. Your advocating bad pathing now?
The hallmark of what determines a good RTS (or at least it used to be, check any old review.). And you want to make it worse? I imagine that if Blizzard see this topic they will immediatly stop listening to anything coming off teamliquid because this is absurd. You want the game to fuck you over because you think it would make it more competetive and raise the skill level? I mean if this isn't completly random gamebreaking things that ruins a fair figth and competetivness then what is?
This isn't about the skill gap, This is about you wanting it to be like exactly like Broodwar. But change happens and games improve and this topic is idiocy at it's worst.
On April 04 2008 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: This is getting really, REALLY ridicolus. Your advocating bad pathing now?
The hallmark of what determines a good RTS (or at least it used to be, check any old review.). And you want to make it worse? I imagine that if Blizzard see this topic they will immediatly stop listening to anything coming off teamliquid because this is absurd. You want the game to fuck you over because you think it would make it more competetive and raise the skill level? I mean if this isn't completly random gamebreaking things that ruins a fair figth and competetivness then what is?
This isn't about the skill gap, This is about you wanting it to be like exactly like Broodwar. But change happens and games improve and this topic is idiocy at it's worst.
if you think this is an absurd post you don't check the blizzard forums very often...
On April 04 2008 05:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: This is getting really, REALLY ridicolus. Your advocating bad pathing now?
The hallmark of what determines a good RTS (or at least it used to be, check any old review.). And you want to make it worse? I imagine that if Blizzard see this topic they will immediatly stop listening to anything coming off teamliquid because this is absurd. You want the game to fuck you over because you think it would make it more competetive and raise the skill level? I mean if this isn't completly random gamebreaking things that ruins a fair figth and competetivness then what is?
This isn't about the skill gap, This is about you wanting it to be like exactly like Broodwar. But change happens and games improve and this topic is idiocy at it's worst.
It's not about skill gap and it's not about being like broodwar. It's about problems arising in preventing strategies from being executed.
The link Zanno posted looks like something that definitely needs attention to me.
I have to disagree with some of the things stated by the topic creator:
AoX had pretty good pathfinding and it was really good because:
- moving your units around the map was much easier - blocking ramps etc. was still possible because enemy units aren't treated like your own for pathfinding - flanking had a lot impact in the game which requires quite a bit of skill/timing to perform nicely (check out the vid how fallen players use their lings to flank enemies) which led to some really entertaining matches especially that the terrain also had great impact on this (can I go around this tree clump to get into enemy army rear? What if that's exactly what he expects and I'm just gonna lose 1/3 of my army?)
I have to agree with Zanno and the OP to a certain extent.
The A.I. nowadays is absolutely nuts and I would rather see them give more control to the players again. :/ I really dislike the grouping formations and it makes AoE spells far too effective and look what happens!?!?!?! They have to nerf spells like Psi Storm, which is flat out lame. More control, more control, MORE CONTROL!!
P.S. Don't worry about the other nutters guys because that is all they are nutters. I'm sure Blizzard plans on doing something about this.
Things which are wrong with Starcraft 2: - improved pathfinding - unlimited unit selection - multiple building selection - continuous beam weapons - new mobility options - 3d graphics - removing old units - adding new units - "2" decals not just attached to old Starcraft boxes
On April 04 2008 09:33 Funchucks wrote: Things which are wrong with Starcraft 2: - improved pathfinding - unlimited unit selection - multiple building selection - continuous beam weapons - new mobility options - 3d graphics - removing old units - adding new units - "2" decals not just attached to old Starcraft boxes
Oh i see what u did there~! Thing is, even if it does seem like people just want it to play like Brood War, maybe that really is the best thing if Blizzard wants to achieve their goal of StarCraft II being competitive. I'm not against change, I really love most of the new units (glad soul hunter is gone though) but things like the way units move in relation to each other isn't an argument you should accuse of being a result of someone resisting change. It's a legitimate concern and the kind of response you made borders the realm of irrelevance.
On April 04 2008 09:33 Funchucks wrote: Things which are wrong with Starcraft 2: - improved pathfinding - unlimited unit selection - multiple building selection - continuous beam weapons - new mobility options - 3d graphics - removing old units - adding new units - "2" decals not just attached to old Starcraft boxes
WHAT THE HELL u got to accept some changes dude 10 years since starcraft came out , things have changed to assume a 2d rts would be released in 2008 is ludicrous
All these posts asking for poorly executed (not at the time, but compared to modern rts) and/or buggy features to be kept in the game because to remove them will lessen it are assuming that there won't be any new such features. Calm down about it all imo..
Hey man, I'm not asking for intentionly poorly designed pathfinding. I'm asking for a pathfinding set in which the actions I make with the mouse by and large match up with what's going through my head. As bizzare as it was, starcraft's occasionally annoying simple pathfinding did a better job of this than the completely different pathfinding of warcraft 3 did, and sc2 pathing looks like a tweaked version of war3 pathing. I don't want my units clumping unless I want them to clump. If my goons are in a straight line to charge a tank formation I'd like them to stay in that line when I tell them to attack move cross map. If I have them deliberately clustered to prevent zergling surrounding then I want them to stay in a tight pack. Warcraft 3 AI deliberately clusters 100% of the time when issuing a move command no matter how much you scream at it.
Problems with units getting stuck on each other in SC and retardedly marching off to their death were mostly addressed, there has to be some happy middle point between the two games.
On April 04 2008 09:33 Funchucks wrote: Things which are wrong with Starcraft 2: - improved pathfinding - unlimited unit selection - multiple building selection - continuous beam weapons - new mobility options - 3d graphics - removing old units - adding new units - "2" decals not just attached to old Starcraft boxes
WHAT THE HELL u got to accept some changes dude 10 years since starcraft came out , things have changed to assume a 2d rts would be released in 2008 is ludicrous
You obviously don't know much about starcraft or don't know anything at all, and the only complex knowledge you ever gained from an RTS is how to cheese with nightelf or learning mass talons while you started playing war3 in the morning. I suggest you go educate yourself because no one will listen to your crap since you don't offer any significant points nor do you have any value concerning your opinions. Most of the guys that want the old features to stay know what they are talking about, they're veterens and they're C+,B, or A ranked starcraft players, something which you will never get from playing that stupid crap shit of a game you call war3. Being a good player in war3 means absolutely nothing at all, since that game died in korea and as a professional sport long time ago anyways, my best advice is to go back to your game and make it crap like your war3 boys did before wiih your whining of raider ensnare and other things; just don't make our game crap (starcraft a real complicated game mind you) since obviously it has meaning.
On April 04 2008 09:33 Funchucks wrote: Things which are wrong with Starcraft 2: - improved pathfinding - unlimited unit selection - multiple building selection - continuous beam weapons - new mobility options - 3d graphics - removing old units - adding new units - "2" decals not just attached to old Starcraft boxes
WHAT THE HELL u got to accept some changes dude 10 years since starcraft came out , things have changed to assume a 2d rts would be released in 2008 is ludicrous
You obviously don't know much about starcraft or don't know anything at all, and the only complex knowledge you ever gained from an RTS is how to cheese with nightelf or learning mass talons while you started playing war3 in the morning. I suggest you go educate yourself because no one will listen to your crap since you don't offer any significant points nor do you have any value concerning your opinions. Most of the guys that want the old features to stay know what they are talking about, they're veterens and they're C+,B, or A ranked starcraft players, something which you will never get from playing that stupid crap shit of a game you call war3. Being a good player in war3 means absolutely nothing at all, since that game died in korea and as a professional sport long time ago anyways, my best advice is to go back to your game and make it crap like your war3 boys did before wiih your whining of raider ensnare and other things; just don't make our game crap (starcraft a real complicated game mind you) since obviously it has meaning.
Wait a bit. Multimarine and Zanno are talking about two different but similar things. Multimarine just wants old bugs back because he thinks bugs and poor game design are cool. Zanno tho does have a point and wants the FORMATION of units in SC2 to change from WC3 auto formation to bw manual formation which allows for more control, but he does wants bugs fixed (mid term between bw and wc3).
I would agree with Zanno, but I'm not even sure if the units in SC2 does behave like that. Seems from some vids that it does but from others that it doesn't. Maybe changed from one build to another. Would rather wait for beta for further complaints. But I do agree with his point. I'd rather set my own formations than to have the game auto decide it for itself.
On April 04 2008 23:44 VIB wrote: Wait a bit. Multimarine and Zanno are talking about two different but similar things. Multimarine just wants old bugs back because he thinks bugs and poor game design are cool. Zanno tho does have a point and wants the FORMATION of units in SC2 to change from WC3 auto formation to bw manual formation which allows for more control, but he does wants bugs fixed (mid term between bw and wc3).
I would agree with Zanno, but I'm not even sure if the units in SC2 does behave like that. Seems from some vids that it does but from others that it doesn't. Maybe changed from one build to another. Would rather wait for beta for further complaints. But I do agree with his point. I'd rather set my own formations than to have the game auto decide it for itself.
It's true, all the problems we all complain about don't really work until we have a beta to play.
I wish they would at least start a closed beta, and let like all the TL admins in on it so they could tell us what's up.
As it is we don't get enough updates on the details that are impossible to get from VODs without some kind of beta.
On April 04 2008 01:30 MultiMarine wrote: -Since five Zealots walk like one and do not spread out, dancing with marines or hydras will be ruined.
How the hell does better path finding ruin marine or hydra dancing? Secondly, Zealots DO NOT walk in single file in SC, they retain the magic box formation that they were originally sitting in, unless you A-attacked from one side of the map to the other.
On April 04 2008 01:30 MultiMarine wrote: - Using your scv's, probes or drones in fights will be ruined.
No, worker stacking is still in the game. Also, they're even easier to surround units with than in SC, notice how Savior managed to surround a zealot with just 4-5 drones easily.
On April 04 2008 01:30 MultiMarine wrote: - Harrasing peon lines will be ruined since perfect pathfindig, unlimeted selection and more time will make running away with your peons really easy.
Right... harassing will be ruined, even though workers already have 100% pathfinding in BOTH games, since they have 0 collision size when you direct them to another mineral patch.
On April 04 2008 01:30 MultiMarine wrote: - Blocking ramps with units.
Blocking your ramp will always provide a ridiculous advantage over the attacking player as it reduces the # of units pushing up to about 2 at a time. This has nothing to do with pathfinding, unless the attacking player has 0 micro and just lets his units attempt to a-attack up the ramp.
On April 04 2008 01:30 MultiMarine wrote: - If the beloved Reaver would make a return it would be ruined.
The buggy AI is the worst problem about the reaver. Yes, it can add "suspense" to a VOD because of the luck factor, but of course luck should have no place in an E-Sport like Starcraft anyways.
I see how it is now. Any OP that is critical of SC2 and says "SC is great, therefore we should make <insert aspect of SC2> exactly like it was in SC" will be tolerated on these forums, even if it's about a buggy PoS like poor pathfinding with terrible reasoning/logic to support it. This is one of the worst OPs I've ever seen on TL and is crap even by Battle.net forum standards, because it's somehow asking Blizzard to reintroduce "pathfinding bugs" into the AI (and not even competition-friendly bugs like muta-stacking, just plain shitty bad pathfinding). Anyone who "agrees with OP" clearly didn't read it or will blindly agree to anything that says "make SC2 like SC".
On April 04 2008 01:46 Zanno wrote: I feel the most optimal formation to balance between stupidity and over-intelligence is to have all units move in a parallel formation to one another. So, once you have your formation set up, it will be preserved as long as they're moving on open ground. If they have to go into a choke point, then they should go in a straight line and reconverge in their formation on the other side provided they have room to. That is essentially how units work in starcraft right now if you use the magical box principle. If you violate the magical box, the units will march in a straight line and cluster into a tight ball once they reach the destination - I suppose it would be logical if they still did this if you clicked on a point inside of your selection's formation, but not when travelling across map. I imagine they'd have still use magical boxes to set some threshold for the group (probably a screen's size) as well so that a unit crossmap doesn't get confused, but it'd be nice if having a few stray units outside of the magical box didn't cause the whole system to fall apart. Don't really know how you could program this, but there has to be some way.
Agreed. Retaining magic box is a good idea. Maybe they should have 3 different settings when it comes to formation. A) Just clump everything in a ball (current SC2) B) Retain original magic box formation of units when they reach destination C) Melee/ranged formation mode for newbies
EDIT: But then again, isn't that reducing the skill required for unit control? Shouldn't a player be rewarded for controlling his units and manually splitting them up to dodge a storm? Just like how Protoss manually split up their dragoons to avoid tank splash. I'm not entirely sure if it should be implemented, because isn't that also automating an aspect of unit control and reduces skill in SC2?
On April 04 2008 01:46 Zanno wrote: What really worries me about SC2 pathing is that melee units seem to have some sort of auto-surround behavior that, while it looks cool, I think is going to ultimately going to be discarded. If ranged units also do the equivalent action of automatically focus fire then I'm going to flip my shit.
There's no auto-surround behaviour in SC2 (as far as I'm aware), unless you're talking about Zealot charge, which causes auto-surrounding simply due to the huge speed increase. They will never make units will auto-focus fire.
Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
Just watched old official terran demo vid and there were at least 3 times when units did keep their formation. The first time is when banshees were introduced. When Cavez (or whoever commands units) sent 4 of 'em to kill marines. Next time is near demonstration of supply depots ability - Thor and marines clearly keep formation 2 out of 3 move commands. And lastly ghost were always moving in formation until ordered through minimap (as far as I'm concerned, so far every single unit clusters when order to move through minimap; that's not true for bw). So weird ^_^ I'd prefer to ask them about this asap, instead of waiting for beta ;P
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Pathfinding is always a big issue in any RTS, especially if the developers have to use it as balancing tool - Scarab pathfinding is kept intentionally bad because if they would always hit (as you would expect of a highly sophisitcatd alien guided explosive) they would have been to strong.
Formation needs are frequently shifting - but the better the control the less the "skill". Imagine if your units would move like you´d want them to! Madness!
Hm I think I might have ignored magic-box questions in the submit your questions thread (or there werent any) because I didn't realize their importance Will make sure I send one in this month tho.
FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
Bad path finding sucks ass, and is one of the reasons I despised a lot of maps with user-created ramps and such. Peaks made me want to shoot myself when I'd try to move my army across the map while macroing and flash back to find half of my hydras getting assraped on one end, while the zerglings skip across the other way
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Someday you will grow up and understand not everyone on this planet is a native english speaker. What are you trying to say? That i should not be allowed to have an opinion if i can't write perfect English? There are way to many people like you who start bitching about grammar and spelling instead of actually trying to understand the post! You think writing skills is more important then actually knowing something about the subject you are discussing? Cause you might be a world class writter but you knowledge about the subject is a joke.
I have played Starcraft for 10 years. I have been competing in Korea 2 times. I work as a programmer. I'm pretty sure i know more about this then you ever will.
On April 05 2008 05:09 BluzMan wrote: FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
Feel free to write a good question about it and I'll pick it 100%. I can even try to get it sent in for this months edition (sent it yesterday).
Magic boxes is something I've never really known much about (like the inner workings of it) despite playing for quite a long time.
As for the way units clump in SC2, I sort of assumed it was because it was in 3D. Would be nice if they didn't have to, though!
On April 05 2008 05:09 BluzMan wrote: FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
You got that video? I wana see what you're talking about
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Someday you will grow up and understand not everyone on this planet is a native english speaker. What are you trying to say? That i should not be allowed to have an opinion if i can't write perfect English? There are way to many people like you who start bitching about grammar and spelling instead of actually trying to understand the post! You think writing skills is more important then actually knowing something about the subject you are discussing? Cause you might be a world class writter but you knowledge about the subject is a joke.
I mentioned spelling/grammar ONCE, and you make it a focal point. It just makes it hard to read, but the rest of your post is still illogical and sounds like the opinion of a BGH player. I already pointed out the problem with every one of your arguments as have others. You should thank Zanno for somewhat saving this thread.
I have played Starcraft for 10 years. I have been competing in Korea 2 times. I work as a programmer. I'm pretty sure i know more about this then you ever will.
Sorry, but I call BS on your claims, especially when you have 11 posts and three of those are in the SC2 thread opening up new threads. FYI, I've played SC for 10 years too (as have plenty of others), but I don't need to point this out because I can show my knowledge.
On April 05 2008 05:09 BluzMan wrote: FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
Feel free to write a good question about it and I'll pick it 100%. I can even try to get it sent in for this months edition (sent it yesterday).
Magic boxes is something I've never really known much about (like the inner workings of it) despite playing for quite a long time.
As for the way units clump in SC2, I sort of assumed it was because it was in 3D. Would be nice if they didn't have to, though!
The reason units clump togheter in sc2 has nothing to do with magic boxes. The reasons are:
- 3D allows for units to move as close to each other as they possibly can. That's something you can't do with 2D and sprites. - Units interact perfectly and never starts looking for other ways to get to the clicked location with this perfect pathfinding.
Units would clump just as much in Sc1 if it was 3D. With or without magic boxes.
The only solution is to create an imaginary boundary around the units so they can't be so damn close to each other. This would help the micro alot.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Someday you will grow up and understand not everyone on this planet is a native english speaker. What are you trying to say? That i should not be allowed to have an opinion if i can't write perfect English? There are way to many people like you who start bitching about grammar and spelling instead of actually trying to understand the post! You think writing skills is more important then actually knowing something about the subject you are discussing? Cause you might be a world class writter but you knowledge about the subject is a joke.
I mentioned spelling/grammar ONCE, and you make it a focal point. It just makes it hard to read, but the rest of your post is still illogical and sounds like the opinion of a BGH player. I already pointed out the problem with every one of your arguments as have others. You should thank Zanno for somewhat saving this thread.
I have played Starcraft for 10 years. I have been competing in Korea 2 times. I work as a programmer. I'm pretty sure i know more about this then you ever will.
Sorry, but I call BS on your claims, especially when you have 11 posts and three of those are in the SC2 thread opening up new threads. FYI, I've played SC for 10 years too (as have plenty of others), but I don't need to point this out because I can show my knowledge.
You know.... i'm 28 years old. I don't make stuff up on message boards to sound cool. I don't care if you belive me or not, you have already proven to me you don't know this subject.
No one has saved this post since no one even understands the problem. The problem is not magic boxes. Look at my post above!
On April 05 2008 05:09 BluzMan wrote: FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
Feel free to write a good question about it and I'll pick it 100%. I can even try to get it sent in for this months edition (sent it yesterday).
Magic boxes is something I've never really known much about (like the inner workings of it) despite playing for quite a long time.
As for the way units clump in SC2, I sort of assumed it was because it was in 3D. Would be nice if they didn't have to, though!
The reason units clump togheter in sc2 has nothing to do with magic boxes. The reasons are:
- 3D allows for units to stand as close to each other as they possibly can. That's something you can't do with 2D and sprites. - Units interact perfectly and never starts looking for other ways to get to the clicked location with this perfect pathfinding.
Units would clump just as much in Sc1 if it was 3D. With or without magic boxes.
The only solution is to create an imaginary boundary around the units so they can't be so damn close to each other. This would help the micro alot.
There's obviously imaginary boundaries around every unit already, or else the units would stack onto each other 2D or 3D. I don't think you understand what magic boxes are. I would advise you to reread Zanno's post.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Someday you will grow up and understand not everyone on this planet is a native english speaker. What are you trying to say? That i should not be allowed to have an opinion if i can't write perfect English? There are way to many people like you who start bitching about grammar and spelling instead of actually trying to understand the post! You think writing skills is more important then actually knowing something about the subject you are discussing? Cause you might be a world class writter but you knowledge about the subject is a joke.
I mentioned spelling/grammar ONCE, and you make it a focal point. It just makes it hard to read, but the rest of your post is still illogical and sounds like the opinion of a BGH player. I already pointed out the problem with every one of your arguments as have others. You should thank Zanno for somewhat saving this thread.
I have played Starcraft for 10 years. I have been competing in Korea 2 times. I work as a programmer. I'm pretty sure i know more about this then you ever will.
Sorry, but I call BS on your claims, especially when you have 11 posts and three of those are in the SC2 thread opening up new threads. FYI, I've played SC for 10 years too (as have plenty of others), but I don't need to point this out because I can show my knowledge.
You know.... i'm 28 years old. I don't make stuff up on message boards to sound cool. I don't care if you belive me or not, you have already proven to me you don't know this subject.
Really? I don't know this subject? I think you missed my two posts earlier, which you've failed to respond to. What'd your ID? What competitions in Korea? Anyone else who can verify your ID (since you've been "progamer for 10 years")? Why do you only have 11 posts on TL? You're not convincing me, by saying "oh, I'm 28, I'm progamer, I don't need to prove myself".
On April 05 2008 05:09 BluzMan wrote: FA, I, for once, consider magic boxes a much more pressing concern that MBS and automine combined. At first I thought it was just an alpha feature that would be reworked in the final builds, but in the recent videos it still stays - units almost stack, it's ridiculous. You can fit like 30 stalkers in a relatively small blob because all units in SC2 so far ignore formation (I am a big hater of predefined Warcraft III - style formations though) and they have a way too small clipping size It's gamebreaking.
Feel free to write a good question about it and I'll pick it 100%. I can even try to get it sent in for this months edition (sent it yesterday).
Magic boxes is something I've never really known much about (like the inner workings of it) despite playing for quite a long time.
As for the way units clump in SC2, I sort of assumed it was because it was in 3D. Would be nice if they didn't have to, though!
The reason units clump togheter in sc2 has nothing to do with magic boxes. The reasons are:
- 3D allows for units to stand as close to each other as they possibly can. That's something you can't do with 2D and sprites. - Units interact perfectly and never starts looking for other ways to get to the clicked location with this perfect pathfinding.
Units would clump just as much in Sc1 if it was 3D. With or without magic boxes.
The only solution is to create an imaginary boundary around the units so they can't be so damn close to each other. This would help the micro alot.
There's obviously imaginary boundaries around every unit already, or else the units would stack onto each other 2D or 3D. I don't think you understand what magic boxes are. I would advise you to reread Zanno's post.
Ground units are not supposed to be able to walk thru another unit so the boundaries are not imaginary. Once again you show you know absolutly nothing about programming and the difference between 3D and 2D. And as i said before. Units clumping togheter has nothing todo with magic boxes. You don't need a made up concept like magix boxes when you program in 3D.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Someday you will grow up and understand not everyone on this planet is a native english speaker. What are you trying to say? That i should not be allowed to have an opinion if i can't write perfect English? There are way to many people like you who start bitching about grammar and spelling instead of actually trying to understand the post! You think writing skills is more important then actually knowing something about the subject you are discussing? Cause you might be a world class writter but you knowledge about the subject is a joke.
I mentioned spelling/grammar ONCE, and you make it a focal point. It just makes it hard to read, but the rest of your post is still illogical and sounds like the opinion of a BGH player. I already pointed out the problem with every one of your arguments as have others. You should thank Zanno for somewhat saving this thread.
I have played Starcraft for 10 years. I have been competing in Korea 2 times. I work as a programmer. I'm pretty sure i know more about this then you ever will.
Sorry, but I call BS on your claims, especially when you have 11 posts and three of those are in the SC2 thread opening up new threads. FYI, I've played SC for 10 years too (as have plenty of others), but I don't need to point this out because I can show my knowledge.
You know.... i'm 28 years old. I don't make stuff up on message boards to sound cool. I don't care if you belive me or not, you have already proven to me you don't know this subject.
Really? I don't know this subject? I think you missed my two posts earlier, which you've failed to respond to. What'd your ID? What competitions in Korea? Anyone else who can verify your ID (since you've been "progamer for 10 years")? Why do you only have 11 posts on TL? You're not convincing me, by saying "oh, I'm 28, I'm progamer, I don't need to prove myself".
No you don't know this subject. This is about programming and not about magic boxes. If Blizzard never read any posts here they would have no idea what magic boxeswere . They don't care about magic boxes and there is no way they will add this made up concept when they make this game in 3D.
I played in the first WCGC (as the first WCG was called if you are old enough to remember) for example.
When did i say i have been a progamer for 10 years? Or even a progamer for that matter?
Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding. - Units clump because 3D models can move and interact perfectly in a 3D world, while in 2D you have to move squares around no matter what the unit looks like. 2D creates alot of bugs in the pathfinding and the collision detection since you are not working with 3D models but with sprites.
MultiMarine, are you Kenka? Terran nickname + played in Korea + WCGC + the age seems right. The only other swede I know competed in Korea is eVERLAST but I'm not sure he played in WCGC.
Btw, what makes you so sure blizzard doesn't know about it?
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding. - Units clump because 3D models can move and interact perfectly in a 3D world, while in 2D you have to move squares around no matter what the unit looks like. 2D creates alot of bugs in the pathfinding and the collision detection since you are not working with 3D models but with sprites.
How do you explain "korean casting" then? It's something unbelievably hard to do unintentionally.
Btw, I submitted a question to the April thread, dunno if it's formulated well enough.
On April 05 2008 07:55 FrozenArbiter wrote: MultiMarine, are you Kenka? Terran nickname + played in Korea + WCGC + the age seems right. The only other swede I know competed in Korea is eVERLAST but I'm not sure he played in WCGC.
Btw, what makes you so sure blizzard doesn't know about it?
No i'm not Kenka. But i know who he is and he knows me. He did not play in WCGC thou. Me and Daaman from Sweden did. I used the nick name Multifaith then.
The first time i was in Korea i was there with 4 Swedes. One of them was eVERLAST. The tourny we played was the tourny that made Grrrr a star when he came second and after that moved to Korea.
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding. - Units clump because 3D models can move and interact perfectly in a 3D world, while in 2D you have to move squares around no matter what the unit looks like. 2D creates alot of bugs in the pathfinding and the collision detection since you are not working with 3D models but with sprites.
How do you explain "korean casting" then? It's something unbelievably hard to do unintentionally.
Btw, I submitted a question to the April thread, dunno if it's formulated well enough.
I'm guessing it took atleast 5 years before someone discovered korean casting or magic boxes for that matter. If it wasn't unintentional someone would have discovered it alot sooner and it would have been in the starcraft rulebook(or whatever it's called) that comes with the game. If someone at Blizzard actually knew they had created magic boxes the rumour would have spread and we wouldn't have waited 5 or more years to hear about it.
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding.
Jesus... play the game a little. It works for flying units as well, and they don't even bother with pathfinding.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place within the bounding box of their group - they bunch up.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place outside of their group - they keep the same relative distance.
The bounding box of their group is the "magic box". Anyone who knows anything about game programming would find it absolutely obvious that there is a bit of code in the Starcraft source that looks something like this:
if (destination_in_box(current_destination, bounding_box_of_selection(current_selection))){ send_all_to_destination(current_selection,current_destination); }else{ current_center=box_center(bounding_box(current_selection)); for(each unit in current_selection){ unit_displacement=unit_displacement_from_center(unit, current_center); unit_destination=destination_displaced_from_center(unit_displacement, current_destination); send_to_destination(unit, unit_destination); } }
Now, various exploits of this code may be considered bugs, but if you think the magic boxes themselves just happened accidentally, you're an idiot.
What they're calling "magic boxes" are known as "colision boxes" in any video game since freaking pacman. They're programed on purpose, there is no such thing as an "accidental 2d specific bug" leading to colision boxes. It's a simple "if (SomeUnitPosition - AnotherUnitPosition <= SomeUnitColisionSize) then StopMoving". If you were a programmer like you said, or if you had the slightest superficial idea of what programming is, you would surelly know this.
They could change any unit colision size by just editing one single variable. Units in SC2 clump up together more closer than in SC1 because their colision box (or circle even) is smaller. Nothing else, absolutely nothing else. They clump up to that position faster (ie: the "auto-surround" behaviour you see) because of the faster response (ie: looking for a way around another unit every 0.1sec instead of every 0.5sec, which also makes the game more responsive and natural). That is all intentional. They could change it whenever they felt like it. They will change it if they feel like it. We will only know if it's "too small" or "too fast" or whatever, and give proper feedback, when we get our hands on it and play it. Chill out, and wait for beta.
On April 05 2008 08:21 VIB wrote: What they're calling "magic boxes" are known as "colision boxes" in any video game since freaking pacman. They're programed on purpose, there is no such thing as an "accidental 2d specific bug" leading to colision boxes. It's a simple "if (SomeUnitPosition - AnotherUnitPosition <= SomeUnitColisionSize) then StopMoving". If you were a programmer like you said, or if you had the slightest superficial idea of what programming is, you would surelly know this.
They could change any unit colision size by just editing one single variable. Units in SC2 clump up together more closer than in SC1 because their colision box (or circle even) is smaller. Nothing else, absolutely nothing else. They clump up to that position faster (ie: the "auto-surround" behaviour you see) because of the faster response (ie: looking for a way around another unit every 0.1sec instead of every 0.5sec, which also makes the game more responsive and natural). That is all intentional. They could change it whenever they felt like it. They will change it if they feel like it. We will only know if it's "too small" or "too fast" or whatever, and give proper feedback, when we get our hands on it and play it. Chill out, and wait for beta.
Do you really belive there is no difference in collision detection between 3D and 2D? Can you please describe to me how 2D and 3D is the same when a unit has to stand right behind another on the Z axis?
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding.
Jesus... play the game a little. It works for flying units as well, and they don't even bother with pathfinding.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place within the bounding box of their group - they bunch up.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place outside of their group - they keep the same relative distance.
The bounding box of their group is the "magic box". Anyone who knows anything about game programming would find it absolutely obvious that there is a bit of code in the Starcraft source that looks something like this:
if (destination_in_box(current_destination, bounding_box_of_selection(current_selection))){ send_all_to_destination(current_selection,current_destination); }else{ current_center=box_center(bounding_box(current_selection)); for(each unit in current_selection){ unit_displacement=unit_displacement_from_center(unit, current_center); unit_destination=destination_displaced_from_center(unit_displacement, current_destination); send_to_destination(unit, unit_destination); } }
Now, various exploits of this code may be considered bugs, but if you think the magic boxes themselves just happened accidentally, you're an idiot.
Im gonna start a new thread about how new players that don't know any stracraft history has no idea what was intentional and not in Starcraft. I think this would be a big eye opener for alot of people. And people would stop trusting Blizzard knows exactly what they are doing.
On April 05 2008 08:52 MultiMarine wrote: Do you really belive there is no difference in collision detection between 3D and 2D? Can you please describe to me how 2D and 3D is the same when a unit has to stand right behind another on the Z axis?
The game logic for Starcraft 2 will almost certainly be 2d and tile-based, as it was in Warcraft 3. Units move in two planes: ground and air, which are divided into small squares.
When a unit moves on the ground plane, it identifies one square as its position, and marks that square and a pattern of surround squares as occupied by it. (burrowed units and flying units don't mark squares as occupied)
When units are pathfinding, they only have to look at the map of occupied spaces to see where they can and can't go. Area effect spells and attacks do something similar (the "occupied space" map is probably a flat 2d array, while the "location" or "vulnerability to attack" map is probably a grid of linked list heads - that's how I'd do it, anyway).
Starcraft has a lot of clever little tricks programmed into behaviors related to the map. For instance, if a unit is sitting on top of space occupied by other units or buildings, it just walks out of the occupied space. Mining SCVs pass through unit-occupied space, but not building-occupied space, etc.
Starcraft doesn't do "collision detection" as such, and neither will Starcraft 2. Everything is based on occupation of spaces on a grid. This is why there are so many exploitable stacking mechanics. The SC2 team could probably change the game to have an ugly 2d graphics engine in a few days of work, because the 3d graphics are only a representation of an underlying 2d model.
I've programmed RTSs (nothing great, just little ones for fun). You obviously know nothing and should stop spreading bad information.
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding. - Units clump because 3D models can move and interact perfectly in a 3D world, while in 2D you have to move squares around no matter what the unit looks like. 2D creates alot of bugs in the pathfinding and the collision detection since you are not working with 3D models but with sprites.
-Yes, the name might've been made up, but the concept is very real and can be easily demonstrated in the game. It may not have been noticed before by the players until July started abusing it, but it was always there. Whether it's unintentional or not, it doesn't matter, because it's good for the game. -No, it has nothing to do with 3-D. How does a 3-D world change unit pathing? Units don't "jump" up in the Z-axis to move around another unit, they have to walk around (X/Y-axis) in the same way a 2-D based map works. Use your brain. -No, the interaction between units (i.e. collision detection) is 2-D based. Just look at War3. Units have very large collision sizes which causes units to trip up all the time, which allows players to surround and block units.
On April 05 2008 07:29 Funchucks wrote: Um... magic boxes are obviously programmed into Starcraft intentionally. They may use another name for it internally, but there's no way the units would behave that way accidentally.
I just want to make this really clear!
- Magic boxes is a made up word and concept from a TL poster. - Blizzard never knew they created "magic boxes" while coding. - "Magic boxes" is a "bug" in a 2D world with imperfect pathfinding.
Jesus... play the game a little. It works for flying units as well, and they don't even bother with pathfinding.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place within the bounding box of their group - they bunch up.
Get some mutalisks together, select them all at once, send them to a place outside of their group - they keep the same relative distance.
The bounding box of their group is the "magic box". Anyone who knows anything about game programming would find it absolutely obvious that there is a bit of code in the Starcraft source that looks something like this:
if (destination_in_box(current_destination, bounding_box_of_selection(current_selection))){ send_all_to_destination(current_selection,current_destination); }else{ current_center=box_center(bounding_box(current_selection)); for(each unit in current_selection){ unit_displacement=unit_displacement_from_center(unit, current_center); unit_destination=destination_displaced_from_center(unit_displacement, current_destination); send_to_destination(unit, unit_destination); } }
Now, various exploits of this code may be considered bugs, but if you think the magic boxes themselves just happened accidentally, you're an idiot.
Im gonna start a new thread about how new players that don't know any stracraft history has no idea what was intentional and not in Starcraft. I think this would be a big eye opener for alot of people. And people would stop trusting Blizzard knows exactly what they are doing.
I'm gonna start a thread about how ridiculously hard it is to program in something like magic boxes by accident. Someone had to code in the constants (hardcode, they're not in the datafiles). It is perfectly ok to assume that this feature was not known to the Blizzard PR guys, but to assume it's accidential is idiocy. Not because "Blizzard is god they know what they're doing", but because lines of code of such complexity don't fucking appear by themselves.
Is that hard to get? You were at WCG, that's cool, but aside from your claim you were there, you have done exactly nothing, so you don't really start acting like a prophet who's going to open everyone's eyes, ok?
On April 05 2008 08:52 MultiMarine wrote: Do you really belive there is no difference in collision detection between 3D and 2D? Can you please describe to me how 2D and 3D is the same when a unit has to stand right behind another on the Z axis?
The game logic for Starcraft 2 will almost certainly be 2d and tile-based, as it was in Warcraft 3. Units move in two planes: ground and air, which are divided into small squares.
When a unit moves on the ground plane, it identifies one square as its position, and marks that square and a pattern of surround squares as occupied by it. (burrowed units and flying units don't mark squares as occupied)
Okay. Maybe some terms need to be sorted out to continue this discussion.
Formation (magic boxes) In Brrodwar, units behave and execute attacks/abilities/movement in "formation behaviour" when they are within "the magic box" - ie a certain distance from one another. Thus they'll maintain their relative distance from one another when moved about etc, unless they have to navigate and obstacle
(I'm not sure if a unit end up in the "predetermined formation position" afterwards if it had to navigate and obstacle which delayed it compared to the other units (while no other movement input were added to the unit group, but I believe so.)
Minelaying and spellcasting may be unintentional effects to this, since they use the same functions. (positive ones though).
Unit grouping (air unit stacking) The other behaviour, ie unit clumping, occurs when units are grouped and ordered that find themselves outside the "magic box" and thus all units strive to reach the same coordinate. This because in 99% of all unit movement situation where the units are widely spaced you'd like them to form up, and not move in a formation wide enough to span the map. "Side effects" to this is of course the "muta stack "bug"" (again poorly phrased by whomever) since it's an intentional unit movement behaviour used, and not a glitch.
So magic boxes does not have to do with collision detection (only indirectly), and I find it very hard that this formation versus grouping behaviour is unintentional and a pathing bug. They seem like two distinct and coded units behaviours that are logical as well.
On April 05 2008 19:35 MultiMarine wrote: I'm not saying the units walking in formations was unitentional. I'm saying units behaving differently inside and outside of "magic boxes" were.
Do you really think Blizzard had a meeting when someone said... oh btw.. units should behave in different ways depending on the magic boxes!
I stopped understanding wtf you're talking about. Either way, it's complete nonsense.
Btw, 3D pathfinding isn't fundamentally different from 2D. Actually, it is not different at all. Take a piece of paper, draw a tank, then draw a destination point. Feel free to also draw "placeholders" for rocks and other shit that blocks it's path. Now fold the piece. Does the trajectory change? For the observer, yes it does. But for the unit, it doesn't. It still has to do the same movement, because even a 3D unit that is deterministically tied to a surface, is essentially 2D. Terrain folding and slopes are a mere change of metrics which, as we all know from differential geometry, is only felt "outside" the system, but not "inside" it. Your unit still uses the pathfinding algorythms for a plane, the complexity of the surface for it doesn't exist, it only exists for you, the observer, since you are in the third dimension. At least this is how it done for the dominating majority of RTS'es in 3D and I don't think SC II will be any different. The only reason to do otherwise would be including realistic gravity in the behavior of ground units (climbing is harder than going down etc), because the gravity vector does not transform with the surface and isn't affected by metrics. But that feature in StarCraft would only bring unneeded complexity and will not be in.
Also, 3D pathfinding uses collision sizes like 2D does. The only difference of SC collision from War III collision is that in War3, collision bounds are being represented by circles, whereas in SC, they are represented by rectangles. That difference is the only one, being there due to increased processor power, so that more complex calculations can be done without hampering play experience. But they smooth out pathfinding, so such a tradeoff is worthwhile. "True" 3D pathfinding (that is based on objects not overlapping) is a remarkably redundant feature for an RTS, as it add a CRAPLOAD of unneeded complex math for an unnoticeable increase in realism. Models nowadays are extremely complex, why the hell calculate their collisions when you can just represent them with a circle and achieve similar results for no processor power? Sure, sometimes units will overlap abit. But they overlap in Warcraft III, Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3 and noone seems to care.
To be fair there ARE reasons to use a 3D pathfinding system: when there is actually a 3rd dimension to travel in like in Homeworld.
Magic boxes are a unitntuitive and comperativly "weak" mechanic (doesn´t work with obstacles) so it is no surprise Blizzard never told anyone about it. On the other hand they improve pathfinding for small groups over small distances, ergo in battles. We don´t know yet how they will handle it in SC2, personally I hope for a switch in the UI like in WC3. Naturally that requires the pathfinding AI to improve.
Yeah, I think some programmer at Blizzard thought about the pathfinding algorithm and decided that it was best to split up the pathfinding task based on unit distance.
For example, if two units are very far apart, they should not maintain formation. Their relative positions are likely irrelevant to the player anyway. If you have two zealots on the 12 and 6 mains of Lost Temple, for example, and you tell them to move to a different main, it wouldn't make sense for the zealots to move to the places above and below the target location. That would be frustrating. So: Check to see if the units are far apart. If they are, don't maintain formation.
BUT if the units are very close, and the player has made an intricate formation, it would be frustrating for that formation to disappear just because he wanted to move his units forward. Therefore it's best to keep formation if units are all within a small area. (As a side note, I believe 'korean casting' is a consequence of this. Casters choose their targets using the same algorithm as all units choose destinations. So psi storms are centered at the places the templar would move to if the command issued was a move command instead of storm.) So: Check to see if the units are close together. If they are, do maintain formation.
This gives rise to the different behavior inside and outside of what the community has termed "magic boxes." The magic box is really just the maximum distance apart units can be before the game ignores the formation of the units. If units are in magic boxes, they keep formation and do korean casting. Otherwise, to prevent weird, frustrating, and non-useful pathfinding, they ignore formation.
It makes sense to me. Please tell me what you think is wrong with my analysis. I have been playing starcraft for only 2 years and have never been to Korea or played in a WCG, and I'm only in school learning to be a programmer, so it is possible that I am missing something here. Thank you.
On April 06 2008 02:37 KonekoTyriin wrote: Yeah, I think some programmer at Blizzard thought about the pathfinding algorithm and decided that it was best to split up the pathfinding task based on unit distance.
For example, if two units are very far apart, they should not maintain formation. Their relative positions are likely irrelevant to the player anyway. If you have two zealots on the 12 and 6 mains of Lost Temple, for example, and you tell them to move to a different main, it wouldn't make sense for the zealots to move to the places above and below the target location. That would be frustrating. So: Check to see if the units are far apart. If they are, don't maintain formation.
BUT if the units are very close, and the player has made an intricate formation, it would be frustrating for that formation to disappear just because he wanted to move his units forward. Therefore it's best to keep formation if units are all within a small area. (As a side note, I believe 'korean casting' is a consequence of this. Casters choose their targets using the same algorithm as all units choose destinations. So psi storms are centered at the places the templar would move to if the command issued was a move command instead of storm.) So: Check to see if the units are close together. If they are, do maintain formation.
This gives rise to the different behavior inside and outside of what the community has termed "magic boxes." The magic box is really just the maximum distance apart units can be before the game ignores the formation of the units. If units are in magic boxes, they keep formation and do korean casting. Otherwise, to prevent weird, frustrating, and non-useful pathfinding, they ignore formation.
It makes sense to me. Please tell me what you think is wrong with my analysis. I have been playing starcraft for only 2 years and have never been to Korea or played in a WCG, and I'm only in school learning to be a programmer, so it is possible that I am missing something here. Thank you.
It doesn't take a WCG presence to write a good post, and you just proved it.
On April 05 2008 08:52 MultiMarine wrote: Do you really belive there is no difference in collision detection between 3D and 2D? Can you please describe to me how 2D and 3D is the same when a unit has to stand right behind another on the Z axis?
The game logic for Starcraft 2 will almost certainly be 2d and tile-based, as it was in Warcraft 3. Units move in two planes: ground and air, which are divided into small squares.
When a unit moves on the ground plane, it identifies one square as its position, and marks that square and a pattern of surround squares as occupied by it. (burrowed units and flying units don't mark squares as occupied)
what about slopes?
Height and slope just are properties of the tiles. A tile might be marked "flat: height=5" or "slope: 4 to 5" (obviously, not with words and numbers, but in coded data that can be intepreted this way).
I might remember the mechanic wrong, but I believe slopes do work differently. You shoot as if standing on the lower level, but see as if standing on the higher level. If that isn't true, there might not be a slope code at all, and ramps are just marked as being the same height as the higher level they lead to.
Anyway, the point is not the specifics (which I might have slightly wrong), but the principle: tiles can have very simple properties which can create the appearance of a complex environment.
Other tile properties would include "can't walk on" and "can't build here". They could easily have had properties such as "passable only by hovering units", "navigable only by watercraft and amphibious units", "rough ground, movement slowed", "hard ground - no burrowing", etc. but they chose not to put those in.
On April 05 2008 18:23 Luhh wrote: (I'm not sure if a unit end up in the "predetermined formation position" afterwards if it had to navigate and obstacle which delayed it compared to the other units (while no other movement input were added to the unit group, but I believe so.)
Yes, units end up in the right position if you don't interrupt. But almost every time, player does issue new move order before units are finished relocating, thereby he forces the game to memorize new distances. That's probably the main difference between "magic boxes" and "user-defined formation", and that's the biggest problem of magic boxes in starcraft (at least for me...). The gross thing, starcraft, having pretty rough mechanics, have got plenty of ways to fuck up this distance besides natural (and unnatural) map obstacles: - relatively slow reaction time - some units in group react later than other causing unneeded spacing - bizarre turn around mechanics of air units and couple others . I really don't know how to explain that, but this very mechanics is also the cause of famous and funny scv dance (when you command move to fast in opposite directions unit starts fidgeting perpendicularly to your order) - units move only in 16 (unique ^_^) directions. So instead of moving directly to their new destination each unit calculate their own path based on this restriction and the further units are from each other the more differences in their paths.
Good thing is that at least 2 of these issues (first and last) are no existent in sc2 and even if blizz devs include magic boxes without any improvements it still will work much more smoother and pleasing than before.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Nobody could understand it because everyone thought that you could turn it off by disabling formations, goes to show how exactly how much people the people incessantly bashing warcraft 3 have played it
FYI, collision detection in sc and war3 the same - every unit has a circle around it. War3 is only 3d visually, gameplay wise it is still a 2d game. I imagine SC2 will be the same way.
United shouldn't move in auto-formation or anything like that (I didn't really use formations in WCIII, they were kind of a pain). But when you tell a unit to go somewhere, it should go there. If that doesn't happen, the game's design is defective.
I'll be happy as long as you can send the equivalent of a control group of goliaths up a narrow staircase that they barely fit through, and they actually go there after you tell them once.
It would also be nice if you could tell a group of units to attack through a choke, and the first one to reach firing range won't stop in the choke and block all of the other units from attacking.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Nobody could understand it because everyone thought that you could turn it off by disabling formations, goes to show how exactly how much people the people incessantly bashing warcraft 3 have played it
FYI, collision detection in sc and war3 the same - every unit has a circle around it. War3 is only 3d visually, gameplay wise it is still a 2d game. I imagine SC2 will be the same way.
Read the topic - collision area in SC is a rectangle.
I agree with the people who are saying its bad because of what it does to AoE. The reason why they have to nerf a lot of the spells, like psi storm, is SOLELY because of the way the pathfinding is currently.
What they need is a more sophisticated system where a player can consciously control whether the units use a strict tight pathfinding, or use a magic box. This needs to be an active part of the game. Thank you for making a topic about this, because its very important.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Nobody could understand it because everyone thought that you could turn it off by disabling formations, goes to show how exactly how much people the people incessantly bashing warcraft 3 have played it
FYI, collision detection in sc and war3 the same - every unit has a circle around it. War3 is only 3d visually, gameplay wise it is still a 2d game. I imagine SC2 will be the same way.
Pretty sure he's talking about MultiMarine and not you =)
On April 06 2008 08:27 Funchucks wrote: I'll be happy as long as you can send the equivalent of a control group of goliaths up a narrow staircase that they barely fit through, and they actually go there after you tell them once.
It would also be nice if you could tell a group of units to attack through a choke, and the first one to reach firing range won't stop in the choke and block all of the other units from attacking.
The second is not a huge deal to me but the first, god yes. Playing blue storm with an AI that realizes it cant fit through the tiny hole would be 10 times more fun.
On April 05 2008 02:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Well, I think most people here were pretty critical of him.. I don't agree with him, but at least some good posts (Zanno for instance) came out of this..
But the post quality was horrendous, both spelling/grammar and logic wise (just like the other thread he created, which no one could even understand after reading the whole post). Magic box has been brought up before many times and I think it was generally agreed that we want it in SC2, and could be asked in the "submit your questions" thread to Blizzard.
Nobody could understand it because everyone thought that you could turn it off by disabling formations, goes to show how exactly how much people the people incessantly bashing warcraft 3 have played it
FYI, collision detection in sc and war3 the same - every unit has a circle around it. War3 is only 3d visually, gameplay wise it is still a 2d game. I imagine SC2 will be the same way.
I wasn't referring to your post as horrendous, I meant the OP, obviously. And I know plenty about War3. I replied to your post in agreement, so maybe you missed that.
In the alpha build I played, I noticed zealots were clumsily running around going through my pylons and shit. It was worse than sc1 and more like war 3 imo (but not nearly as bad). It seemed pretty decent though. Can't really say anything until the games comes out though.
EPT
Will make sure I send one in this month tho.
. I really don't know how to explain that, but this very mechanics is also the cause of famous and funny scv dance (when you command move to fast in opposite directions unit starts fidgeting perpendicularly to your order)
