Carrier Micro - Page 8
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
btd978
United States17 Posts
| ||
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
Why did they just resign themselves to the position that "the Carrier has no place in the game because its role is already filled by other units"? Why was there never an analysis like this conducted to look at what might lie at the heart of the differences between BW and SC2? It would not be particularly difficult to implement these AI changes. I just can't fathom why Blizzard didn't play around with these settings when it was clear that the Carrier was struggling. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: I'm pretty certain people could make it work - it's just that most people who have attempted to do this don't understand just how carrier micro works.It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine. It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes). This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten. Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development. The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction). Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy). In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation. The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!). This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas which revolve around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation. | ||
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
On September 17 2012 13:31 whatthefat wrote: "the Carrier has no place in the game because its role is already filled by other units"? i dont believe them anymore when they say this. it sounds far too much like an excuse. one they aren't even consistent with. i get really frustrated thinking about why they cut the lurker, because it overlapped with the baneling?. then they add the swarm host... when we have the broodlord already and that isn't overlapping roles? | ||
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
After that, maybe you could somehow add a validator that doesn't let interceptors reenter the hangar as long as the carrier is moving? idk if that's even possible though, it might require a full-on redesign of how carriers launch interceptors. As for interceptors being clickable, that one's for sure doable. You just need to go the unit and uncheck the 'unselectable' and 'untargetable' flags, and then either A) Blizzard (or someone who knows how to create models) needs to create and interceptor model that has attach points or B) you need to add a dummy model that has attach points that is invisible. Hopefully I'm not wrong in assuming that we can in fact add this stuff ourselves. At least the retargeting thing should be doable, and maybe that's enough to make carriers cool again. | ||
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
| ||
Firenza
United States51 Posts
This post is the opposite of that. These concerns make so much sense, and I don't think they're based on buggy AI whatsoever. I basically don't play Protoss, and so I didn't even realize until now that the SCII carrier couldn't switch targets within leash range. That's so awful that I can't believe it wasn't corrected in the WoL beta. I also fully support the idea of instant deployment being micro-based rather than research based. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. And if you do have instant deployment as a micro-based ability, I could see regenerating interceptors as a potential upgrade instead. The ability to target your own interceptors is definitley the most minor issue, and the one I would qualify as the most buggy. The point is that the opponent needs to click on the big thingy in the back instead of A-moving against interceptors; it's to create AI target confusion, not micro-based target confusion. | ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
| ||
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
Meteo Rain
Finland98 Posts
| ||
derElbe
Germany571 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada10923 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine. It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes). This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten. In regards to that, I kinda like how open to the community the developers of Grim Dawn are during development. It's not that they have no vision of the project and are just following the whims of their forum users, but they soliciting feedback even at the early stages. Who knows, maybe it'll be no better than Diablo 3, but it'll be an interesting proof of concept on how to make a computer game with community input. I guess to some extent DOTA 2 is that as well given that they're including LAN of all things. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. Hoorah Sometimes it feels like we're speaking a foreign language. | ||
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
Also I would also be up for Nony explaining BW mechanics as well, this was very enlightening. I don't think I disagreed with a single point he made there, down to the fact that I didn't understand the intricacies of carrier micro but as a fan could tell who had good or bad carrier micro and whatnot. So good :D | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
Now I get why carrieres aren't used in SC2. Thanks for the insight On September 17 2012 13:55 Firenza wrote: This was a really fantastic post. I never played BW competitively, but I remember the idiotic frustration of using the reaver. When people exalt it I just sort of groan to myself and think, "bad pathing should not be part of a unit's balance." It makes me want to defend SCII more vigorously, even as I do understand that I'm truly not "getting it" because I wasn't into competitive BW. This post is the opposite of that. These concerns make so much sense, and I don't think they're based on buggy AI whatsoever. I basically don't play Protoss, and so I didn't even realize until now that the SCII carrier couldn't switch targets within leash range. That's so awful that I can't believe it wasn't corrected in the WoL beta. I also fully support the idea of instant deployment being micro-based rather than research based. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. And if you do have instant deployment as a micro-based ability, I could see regenerating interceptors as a potential upgrade instead. The ability to target your own interceptors is definitley the most minor issue, and the one I would qualify as the most buggy. The point is that the opponent needs to click on the big thingy in the back instead of A-moving against interceptors; it's to create AI target confusion, not micro-based target confusion. :D Remember it's the old timers who are the hungriest for a successor to BW. Nobody enjoys bitching. | ||
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
Non0
United States100 Posts
| ||
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
On September 17 2012 15:06 Jumperer wrote: MORE VIDEOS NONY. TELL 'EM BLIZZARD ABOUT BW MECHANICS. minus the caps I think this post is pretty awesome! A series about BW mechanics like hold micro, Hell even Friendly Spidermines would be cool to go over since most people here don't know about them. | ||
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
| ||