EPTBroodwar and Starcraft 2 - Pathing - Page 11
| Blogs > Thieving Magpie |
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
Heartland
Sweden24577 Posts
On September 21 2013 15:15 ClarenceSc wrote: I did not play BW, but reading this post was very interesting all the same. It occured to me though that you could make engagements more interesting by lowering the damage output of units/spells relative to their health. thus making engagements last longer and giving more chance to micro. for Instance you'd have to respread your units more often, blink more, need more ff's in a battle ect. Of course a lot of other things would have to be tweaked to maintain a balanced game. Any thoughts on that? I think you're right, actually. In general damage output is higher in Sc2, with some notable exceptions such as storm. But it would be better if damage was scaled down so that you don't just get incinerated when you try to micro in various ways. | ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
| ||
|
renkin
France249 Posts
What if you put an subtle spread-out option in the orders you give just like BW ? For example, hold position to make your units spread out and stop to make them clump... Same thing with move, a-move or attack. Or even having a command to specify the formation and spread like in other RTS ? We could have the awesome, tense and unpredictable fights from BW and keep the smooth pathfinding of SC2. I know that it's the opposite of what the article says but since you so precisely pin-pointed what makes BW so awesome, there must be a way for SC2 to benefit from this. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
While I appreciate the methodical exposition, and while this is probably the best coverage of the subject matter I've seen in these "let me tell you how it is" pieces, I strongly dislike the thesis* that BW was special because you have to fight the game to make excellent plays. While it does make top level play impressive, and it does contribute to the feel of play, exclusively focusing on this unfairly eschews the underlying game design -- accidental or not -- that creates the strategic/tactical landscape, irrespective of the players' ability to control their pieces. (That last clause is tricky, I will try to explain it, because obviously player control has something to do with the gameplay.) While it is certainly impressive to watch virtuoso players perform magic micro, this is not the realm that distinguishes the two games in the broadest sense. As you said in the piece, in SC2 the pace of engagements is such that it is more important to set up a good fight than to fight well. What we are really trying to say here is that the automatic and simple behaviors have better EV than any specially coordinated behaviors, in all situations. For the player, their only opportunity to gain value is sometime other than during the engagement, and since there isn't much left after an engagement, that time is before, the setup. This seems contrary to what most people look for in a game that is "easy to learn, hard to master", where superior players are provided opportunities to outplay their opponents. What I'm driving at is that focusing on high level execution is looking at the issue backwards. Low level execution, and the gameplay dynamics in that regime, are where we find the illuminating differences. The timescale contributes to a situation where decision-making opportunities are even further limited. Perhaps this is a purely pedantic point to make, because I don't think we would really argue about anything else. I just feel the need to combat the tendency to fetishize elite control that overcomes game systems. (Not that this was necessarily your intention.) I feel it is more important to highlight the problem of too much value for pedestrian control, and not enough delta for varying degrees of specialized control. There is also something to be said about the timescale, game state readability, and spectator value, which you touched on, which is also fundamentally related to this discussion. Pathing is the 2nd order map between unit locations throughout time (unit speed being the trivial and deceptive 1st order map), and so it is probably the most important game feature besides the matrix of individual unit attributes like speed, size, and build time. edit: * I'm not sure how much you meant to take this position, but it seemed like a recurrent undertone that I wanted to address. | ||
Falling
Canada11202 Posts
t BW was special because you have to fight the game to make excellent plays. I would like to make the case that move-shot or most any of the cool micro plays were not 'fighting the game' in any sense of the word. Anymore than needing to manually separate your marines to counter banelings is not 'fighting the game' because the game doesn't auto split for you. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:45 Falling wrote: I would like to make the case that move-shot or most any of the cool micro plays were not 'fighting the game' in any sense of the word. Anymore than needing to manually separate your marines to counter banelings is not 'fighting the game' because the game doesn't auto split for you. Agreed! I suppose I was focusing on the attacking-up-a-ramp idea, which if we're going to sort out what's what... that is a severe case where pedestrian control is horrible EV compared to minimal but concentrated effort. Move-shot (let's pick mutas?) is a case where a certain threshold of effort and ability is required for a subtantial improvement in EV, even a regime-altering difference. And additional effort and/or ability can give some further returns on EV. It might be dithering too much, but I like to think of muta micro as an opportunity for the player to obtain value through execution at their discretion, and pathing problems while attacking as a filter operating on everyone requiring a (much lower) minimal investment of execution, and bounding the aggresive possibilities even given superlative control. The former is pushing the possibilities of the game environment and the latter is a feature that defines the strategic situation. To clarify, I mean to say that the difference in SC2 is due to the high-EV nature of the basic behaviors. This can also be construed as the lack of beneficial EV-for-cost of sophisticated behaviors which immediately conjures the contrast with all the cool micro in BW, but I see that as a secondary (though important) difference and not the fundamental one (where I single out pathing as a the defining factor). I will concede that it becomes a matter of opinion at this point but I just want to be clear about the assertion I'm making.  | ||
|
painkilla
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
metroid composite
Canada231 Posts
I will say that I do think some BW units are good for micro, even outside of pathfinding concerns (as are some SC2 units, of course). Scourge vs Corsair battles were very fun to watch, and none of that is because of pathfinding. One marine being able to take out one lurker was really cool, and is something that would also exist if lurkers were a thing in SC2. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
painkilla
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On September 22 2013 18:07 painkilla wrote: On the other hand, this explains why SC2, despite being a "inferior game" to BW like so many claimed, has been more successful internationally. If SC2 were as mechanically demanding or had as much of a mechanical skill differentiator like BW did then the foreign scene probably wouldn't have existed because no foreigner would be able to play a half-decent game. So to the people who wish SC2 were more like BW, be careful what you wish for. Look at the terran race, the most mechanically demanding race in SC2, and how successful foreigner terran doesn't exist. Pretty sure the fact that it surfaced 10 years after Bw and into a way, way larger and more developed market plays the bigger role there. By the time Bw was released most people didn't even have internet access. | ||
|
Shikada
Serbia976 Posts
I feel enlightened. 5/5 | ||
|
reminisce12
Australia318 Posts
| ||
|
DinoToss
Poland507 Posts
Among progamers in SC2 there are maybe 5 people without RTS background (BW/War3). How much RTS background players had at the start of BW? Close to none. Just watch first progaming matches of BW, its on the level of Starcraft 2 Bronze. BW wouldn't be as hard game as it was back then, because people would already have hand speed and mindset of playing competetive RTS. But alas im rather afraid of how Esports is going toward mainstream. Newer generation of Esports is simply less mechanical in almost all fronts, be it FPS or RTS. And by extension of that is less impressive and entartaining. For both progamers and spectators. It is wrong because, if it continues to the next generation we will end up with actualy computer chess games becoming an Esport. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On September 22 2013 21:32 reminisce12 wrote: may it be a stroke of luck that bw became the game it is, it is still genius design on every level. the graphics, the atomsphere, the music, unit voices, the individual units, racial identity, the game mechanics, almost every aspect is beyond perfect. sc2 simply cannot compete. I agree, and also: even if hitting on the combination of elements in Brood War was a pure luck (which is maybe 20% true), it's quite hopeless that the sequel 15 years later still can't emulate those positive aspects. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On September 22 2013 23:09 DinoToss wrote: Its convenient to say that BW wouldnt be popular today. But history shows that you could launch BW and people would cherish it and it would be filled with both casuals and progamers (Korea). You just need to give them reason for that (Esport). Among progamers in SC2 there are maybe 5 people without RTS background (BW/War3). How much RTS background players had at the start of BW? Close to none. Just watch first progaming matches of BW, its on the level of Starcraft 2 Bronze. BW wouldn't be as hard game as it was back then, because people would already have hand speed and mindset of playing competetive RTS. But alas im rather afraid of how Esports is going toward mainstream. Newer generation of Esports is simply less mechanical in almost all fronts, be it FPS or RTS. And by extension of that is less impressive and entartaining. For both progamers and spectators. It is wrong because, if it continues to the next generation we will end up with actualy computer chess games becoming an Esport. I think strategy games appeal to the mainstream, League of Legends is a strategy game after all (it's a mix of rts, battle arena and card games, so it's two parts strategy). I don't think it's obvious that an RTS will never be the premiere e-sports again some time in the future, people like strategy games and with rts games there are benefits for spectators that don't exist for mobas. | ||
|
balukaz
Belgium5 Posts
But this post is an incredible source of information, you explain things so well, and I dare even say I understand now and agree. (well you'll have to take my word for it) Thank you so much for writing this, I know my postcount doesn't tell so, but I've been browsing tl for 3 years now, and this is the "best" post I've ever read. | ||
|
Quixotic_tv
Germany130 Posts
First: Where are the big Frisbee events compared to MLB? Second: When I was posting in this thread earlier, I was told that my arguments were bad and that "people have to get out of a bubble that SC2 is evolving". That being obviously complete nonsense, I started to feel that I was talking to truthers. And that is what you BW nostalgia guys are. Truthers that one cannot discuss with, because it does not matter what I say and how good my arguments are. Even if SC2 had like 1800 billion billion viewers, you would still miss your old times. I really do appreciate to know that all of you nostalgia guys really loved (past tense) and miss BW, a game that still exists, even tournaments are being played. I am bored with reading how good BW was, how hard to learn, how the bad pathing was so awesome, or any other limitation. My proposal would be: Why not tie one hand to your back while playing SC2? It would make the game so much harder, so much more enjoyable. It is ok to love a game. I love Medieval 2: Total War, and think that any other TW game that came after is inferior to it, but that does not make go to a forum and whine the whole time how bad e.g. Napoleon is. I do not tell Napoleon players that their game needs Jihads or Crusades The article of the OP is a good example of how destructive criticism can be disguised as constructive. He at first says he is "in the middle" of the extremes of opinions, but then he says the gameplay is seriously flawed, and admits he has no ideas how to fix it. This is not helpful, this is whining hidden behind a wall of "smart" writing. You all feel you are contributing. If you would have an interest in contributing seriously, you would stop telling SC2 players "What is wrong with the game" and how great BW was. It was good for obvious reasons, but you will never understand it. You truthers like more to believe in miracles, that Blizzard has made a "lucky strike" with BW, completely ignoring the long history BW had to get through to be THE professional computer game on earth. You would go to the BW section, and discuss BW, watch BW streams, play BW, and be happy with BW. So long guys! I am 33 now and I played tons of games since I was 7, I've also played dota and BW, but in my opinion it is SC2 and HoN that are better. My opinion. That does not make me go to a dota2 or BW forum and tell the players how elitist I am because I like a game they do not play. You know what? Warcraft 1 was better than BW because you had control groups with only 4 units max! See how elitist I am? Nah, that was kidding. EDit: Forgot to tell you that I won't make any more posts here in this thread. my opion is clear, and I've stopped talking to truthers here or anywhere else. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
But, I think you have misread Magpie's post (and, if so, given so much of the comment in this thread, you are not the only one). His point is that BW and SC2 are fundamentally different games and should be regarded as such. Therefore, asking for X feature in SC2 because BW had it may not necessarily work because SC2 has Y feature in it and is integral to the game. As such, any development to the game can only come from within the parameters of the game itself. | ||
| ||
