|
On February 25 2010 22:07 flabortaster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents. We're not saying it is not important. However, units shouldn't be stupid by default. Most of the micro skill put into this is mostly because pros have no other choice; either micro your units or have them die because they can't even take care of themselves properly. Micro should enhance the units not a method of keeping crappy AI in line. Units in sc aren't exactly dumb. Units in sc2 are just overly smart and do things on their own. The only real example of dumb AI in sc is the dragoon, the rest all work almost perfectly. Everything goes where you tell it to.
|
On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard.
Yeah exactly. To me the very easy and simple answer to the micro problem is keep it simple.
Example: Whenever you make a unit go somewhere goes to the place in a straight line if possible. If there are obstacles it goes around the obstacles in the shortest distance possible. If there are units clumping in a tight choke the units queue up behind each other without going backwards (like they do i BW which is bad).
This way the units do not behave retardidly, but still just do the most simple move possible, not surround automatically etc. and leaves perfect control to the player, thereby making him responsible for both good/pimp moves and bad/fail moves.
Similar rules could easily be applied to attacking (attack command = attack closest available enemy, if not in range walk in straight line to the closest enemy attacking).
But I guess they just want to make the casual gamer happy, who wants to watch big armies clashing in a realistic and good way with intense clicking. Bleh.
|
On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Show nested quote +Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Which is scary. They are trying to cater people who have no idea about e-sports and professional gaming and are just looking for a few good months of fun. It's well within Blizzards rights to do whatever they want and they should pick whatever route they feel is best for their company. As a fan of professional gaming though it is precisely that line of thought that has kept e-sports from developing. SC2 will have a huge scene much bigger than WC3. It will have tons of tournaments where all kinds of top players will win good sums of money and have solid sponsorships, but transcending the gaming scene the way BW did in Korea is still a big question mark. Starcraft wasn't created to cater to the pro scene. It was a happy accident.
Again, you need to realize you are a very small niche of the market and that what makes the game enjoyable to you isn't the most important
|
On February 25 2010 22:10 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:07 flabortaster wrote:On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents. We're not saying it is not important. However, units shouldn't be stupid by default. Most of the micro skill put into this is mostly because pros have no other choice; either micro your units or have them die because they can't even take care of themselves properly. Micro should enhance the units not a method of keeping crappy AI in line. Units in sc aren't exactly dumb. Units in sc2 are just overly smart and do things on their own. The only real example of dumb AI in sc is the dragoon, the rest all work almost perfectly. Everything goes where you tell it to. melee unti ai is very dumb in sc1. Instead of looking for a vacant spot to attack their target, they wait until the one blocking its way moves.
|
i think Blizzard needs to add(or buff some that sucks right now) more AoE spells to spice up fights. PvT is fine with EMP vs storm but TvZ for example is a simple attack move and see what happens matchup. get rid of roach bring back lurker+dark swarm
btw suggesting things make you look cool but QQing in the first week of the beta makes you look stupid
|
On February 25 2010 22:05 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:04 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 22:02 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 21:59 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic. go rent terminator 3. You dont even need to use your hands for this one! no need to build a base or think about a single thing Please leave this thread alone. You are pretty much ruining all constructive discussion, as small as it may be. isn't this ironic. I felt the same way when reading the garbage you guys posted except I wanted to flip over my desk and every other object in sight. Think you need to calm down here, just realize Blizzard won't cater to such a minority that we are. Just get over it :C
They do listen to the hardcore crowd but they can't just release pretty much Brood War with better graphics even though a lot of people on this site would prefer that. Dumbing down the AI, breaking the UI, and screwing up path finding just isn't an option. What Blizzard can do however is to further tweaking the macro mechanics and adding more possibilities to micro units.
I'm fairly happy with Protoss when it comes to macro, warp gates are nice and chrono boost is an excellent mechanic that opens up for more different builds and timing pushes. Terran and Zerg's mechanics on the other hand feels more underwhelming. Terran all around, and Zerg's queen, while powerful. feels more like a chore, and isn't that interesting to use.
|
On February 25 2010 22:18 flabortaster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:10 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 22:07 flabortaster wrote:On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents. We're not saying it is not important. However, units shouldn't be stupid by default. Most of the micro skill put into this is mostly because pros have no other choice; either micro your units or have them die because they can't even take care of themselves properly. Micro should enhance the units not a method of keeping crappy AI in line. Units in sc aren't exactly dumb. Units in sc2 are just overly smart and do things on their own. The only real example of dumb AI in sc is the dragoon, the rest all work almost perfectly. Everything goes where you tell it to. melee unti ai is very dumb in sc1. Instead of looking for a vacant spot to attack their target, they wait until the one blocking its way moves. because you told them to attack in a line and not surround and then attack from all angles hence the autosurround in sc2. You tell units to attack in a line but they attack and surround whats in front of them
|
On February 25 2010 22:07 flabortaster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents. We're not saying it is not important. However, units shouldn't be stupid by default. Most of the micro skill put into this is mostly because pros have no other choice; either micro your units or have them die because they can't even take care of themselves properly. Micro should enhance the units not a method of keeping crappy AI in line.
either micro your units or lose the game because you are worse than your opponent in this department. that's what the whole micro-aspect is about. if micro is simplified to the extent we see in beta currently this whole aspect as a game deciding factor, as a certain "skill" that makes players shine is killed. and if it stays that way i guess i'll always view bw as the superior game in terms of comprehensive control over your own victories.
|
On February 25 2010 21:16 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 20:33 Eury wrote: I'm afraid that having broken path finding and dumb AI won't happen in SC 2 no matter how much you complain about it. If you want that go and play SC:BW, last time I checked it worked just fine.
The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more.
Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Please name 1 rts game that hasn't been a complete failure in the last decade. Tick tock tick tock tick tock. Times up moron, there have been none! so what is this progress you're talking about? Is it you being able to build 10 battlecruisers simultaneously in sc2 and comps stomp the ai? Warcraft III, Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, the Warhammer 40K games, Supreme Commmander all sold well and were well liked.
I mean, only WC3 had a proscene really, but that really isn't a games success; its a very small part of it.
Do you guys even want a sequel? Or did you just want a reskinned Brood War, with all the same AI flaws? What is your exact suggestion to "add micro" back in to the game?
|
On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents.
But it is not gone. You are speaking as if there is auto-surround button that you can click and forget. You still need to micro your lings to kill that early scout, anticipate its route and then close in. In SC2, units move from point A to point B faster by taking shortest route, react and respond more quickly (ex. when issued to change direction), and rarely get stuck. Yes the units are smarter, but these improvements shouldn't completely diminish the micro element.
|
On February 25 2010 21:01 bendez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Which is scary. They are trying to cater people who have no idea about e-sports and professional gaming and are just looking for a few good months of fun. It's well within Blizzards rights to do whatever they want and they should pick whatever route they feel is best for their company. As a fan of professional gaming though it is precisely that line of thought that has kept e-sports from developing. SC2 will have a huge scene much bigger than WC3. It will have tons of tournaments where all kinds of top players will win good sums of money and have solid sponsorships, but transcending the gaming scene the way BW did in Korea is still a big question mark. No, there has been plenty of progress. Destructable terrains, controllable strategic points, smoke/grass cover, etc. You may not like it, but many of us do, and it sure was a progress to the genre. I really can't see the connection between smart unit pathing and e-sports from developing, so I can't comment there. Bendez you are trolling hard in this thread man. And if you aren't then youre doing a good job of not making your occasional valid ideas seen through your bs generalizations.
Smoke/grass cover is just a gimmick if there's no skill involved microing 24 lings v 24 lings or using a zealot and a probe to harrass a SCV line. And believe it or not, there are control points in SCBW, they're called chokes, high ground, ramps, ridges, etc. You don't need a designated "control point" to have points important to control on a map, it's called positioning, which I've seen little of in SC2. It's not interesting to see one SCV chilling at a watch tower and gaining vision of the map early game... like, it sees nothing a majority of the time and it's useless because army positioning is less important in SC2 anyways. What is interesting is tank positioning on strategic points of the map in TvT, or using mutalisks to keep a terran in his base so you can establish a third, or sneaking your army to the high ground on Neo Tornado so you can contain a protoss at his choke... what's interesting about having a single unit chilling at a watch tower? :/
And btw, destructible terrain is in BW... temples? Generators? Eggs? Etc? All those things like "this expansion can only be unlocked when you break this down!" has been done before. Look at Hitchhiker, Battle Royal or Neo Arkanoid as examples. There's plenty. It's not innovative at all because its been done in BW many times over.
|
On February 25 2010 22:24 bendez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote: I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents. But it is not gone. You are speaking as if there is auto-surround button that you can click and forget. You still need to micro your lings to kill that early scout, anticipate its route and then close in. In SC2, units move from point A to point B faster by taking shortest route, react and respond more quickly (ex. when issued to change direction), and rarely get stuck. Yes the units are smarter, but these improvements shouldn't completely diminish the micro element. Are you even in the beta? Have you ever seen what lings do to scouting workers because you wouldn't say this if you had the beta.
|
We all know that both W3 and SC1 are the very top e-sport games (compared to other RTS games). In my opinion, the main reason SC2 will fall in the "other RTS games" category, is this: -Blizzard really exaggerated when they reduced units glitching. They clump together way too much than they should. Why this sucks: It makes battles look way less impressive than in SC1 or W3, because armies look so much smaller now, and because the exaggerated improved AI makes the fights end really fast, since units find a way to attack alot more easier/faster, even if you fight on a very narrow spot on the map. This is the reason why fast expands are harder to take. If your opponent has more units, it doesn't matter if you have the positional advantage because of the "improved AI". So now the term of fighting for the terrain advantage is kinda gone, because it doesn't matter where you pick the fight if you have more units (the exceptions are too few, to make it matter). Not once you can see the players simply mass an army in their base, and then try to a-move hoping they have more units. No more need to fight for map center etc ... they tried to introduce those Xel naga watch towers or w/e they're called, but seriously ... no one really cares about them as long as they have the better macro. Back to Warcraft 3, you can see they improved the units AI compared to SC1, but it's not as exaggerated as it's in SC2. It's almost the best way it can be. Try to see how 12ghouls move around map in W3, and how 12 zerglings move in SC2. I think I detailed above what Ret meant by: "I really hate how in sc2, micro is almost non existant. Combined with the easy macro, you have a really dumb simple game right now that almost anyone can be good at." The macro changes Blizzard made are fine, but don't take away the beauty of how a fight looked in SC1/W3, because then SC2 will never be a e-sport game (from observers point of view especially). Also Blizzard should work on units colours because, for example, it doesn't matter if zerglings/zealots are green or yellow -> they kinda look the same on a online streamed game.
PS: I'm not a top player, so some things I said above might not be 100% true, but I hope you got the main idea.
|
On February 25 2010 22:10 Ota Solgryn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. Yeah exactly. To me the very easy and simple answer to the micro problem is keep it simple. Example: Whenever you make a unit go somewhere goes to the place in a straight line if possible. If there are obstacles it goes around the obstacles in the shortest distance possible. If there are units clumping in a tight choke the units queue up behind each other without going backwards (like they do i BW which is bad). This way the units do not behave retardidly, but still just do the most simple move possible, not surround automatically etc. and leaves perfect control to the player, thereby making him responsible for both good/pimp moves and bad/fail moves. Similar rules could easily be applied to attacking (attack command = attack closest available enemy, if not in range walk in straight line to the closest enemy attacking). But I guess they just want to make the casual gamer happy, who wants to watch big armies clashing in a realistic and good way with intense clicking. Bleh.
There is no "auto-surround". Units know the most effective route to reach an enemy unit, and as a result, they surround the unit. You yourself said that you want units to know the shortest distance possible. In SC2, they did just that.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:23 BlackYoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:16 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 20:33 Eury wrote: I'm afraid that having broken path finding and dumb AI won't happen in SC 2 no matter how much you complain about it. If you want that go and play SC:BW, last time I checked it worked just fine.
The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more.
Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Please name 1 rts game that hasn't been a complete failure in the last decade. Tick tock tick tock tick tock. Times up moron, there have been none! so what is this progress you're talking about? Is it you being able to build 10 battlecruisers simultaneously in sc2 and comps stomp the ai? Warcraft III, Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, the Warhammer 40K games, Supreme Commmander all sold well and were well liked. I mean, only WC3 had a proscene really, but that really isn't a games success; its a very small part of it. Do you guys even want a sequel? Or did you just want a reskinned Brood War, with all the same AI flaws? What is your exact suggestion to "add micro" back in to the game?
They did alright in sales, but WC3 is the only one of those games that has ever had any kind of real competitive community. DoW in particular, even its top players will agree its a total joke on the highest level as it is incredibly shallow and unbalanced. SC, on the other hand, has sold copies regularly for over a decade (well over 10x the amount of the games you mentioned) because it has a competitive circuit, and monetary payout to match, that well outweighs WCG several times over (I'm only mentioning that specifically because as far as I know no Supreme Commander tournament has ever had a payout worth mentioning). I'm not sure its unreasonable to expect SC2 to carry on that same legacy.
"We", as in those people who enjoy BW at its highest level because it has many many things no other RTS has ever had, are hoping SC2 has a similar experience. Its too early to tell but these concerns have merit.
|
On February 25 2010 22:31 heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:23 BlackYoshi wrote:On February 25 2010 21:16 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 20:33 Eury wrote: I'm afraid that having broken path finding and dumb AI won't happen in SC 2 no matter how much you complain about it. If you want that go and play SC:BW, last time I checked it worked just fine.
The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more.
Blizzard isn't solely creating this game for the Team Liquid crowd, in fact its surprisingly how similar it is to SC:BW considering the gap between them in both time and technology. Which is fine by me, less so by others. Please name 1 rts game that hasn't been a complete failure in the last decade. Tick tock tick tock tick tock. Times up moron, there have been none! so what is this progress you're talking about? Is it you being able to build 10 battlecruisers simultaneously in sc2 and comps stomp the ai? Warcraft III, Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, the Warhammer 40K games, Supreme Commmander all sold well and were well liked. I mean, only WC3 had a proscene really, but that really isn't a games success; its a very small part of it. Do you guys even want a sequel? Or did you just want a reskinned Brood War, with all the same AI flaws? What is your exact suggestion to "add micro" back in to the game? They did alright in sales, but WC3 is the only one of those games that has ever had any kind of real competitive community. DoW in particular, even its top players will agree its a total joke on the highest level as it is incredibly shallow and unbalanced. SC, on the other hand, has sold copies regularly for over a decade (well over 10x the amount of the games you mentioned) because it has a competitive circuit, and monetary payout to match, that well outweighs WCG several times over, so I'm not sure its unreasonable to expect SC2 to carry on that same legacy. "We", as in those people who enjoy BW at its highest level because it has many many things no other RTS has ever had, are hoping SC2 has a similar experience. Its too early to tell but these concerns have merit.
Just to make things clear; Warcraft 3 outsold Starcraft.
|
On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Actual destructible terrain, being able to zoom out as far as you want, units that can move and shoot, units that act realistic, units that take cover, units that can take care of themself, less base building etc are things many consider are things that have progressed the genre in the last decade or so. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic.
How exactly is this progress for the RTS genre? Realism doesn't add anything to competitiveness or strategic depth, which imo are the two most important aspects of an RTS. To me it sounds as if you want a realistic war SIMULATION, not an RTS. Blizzard stated that they want SC2 to help bring professional gaming to another level. Most of the TL community wants SC2 to achieve that. A realistic simulation doesn't provide anything to achive that task. You don't need realism to create a competitive platform. You need a game that is hard (or rather: impossible) to master.
It's the same with other sports: I don't know of any popular discipline where it is easy to be up there with the pros. This aspect is most important.
|
|
There's a lot of discussion here. I can't wait to read what all the fuss is about. Hope the site is back up by the time I get back from work.
|
So you guys just want the Brood War AI? Got it.
Realize that you are a very small minority, and people just want their units to work when they click to attack another unit. Even today, "competitive" SC players are a minority compared to the people who play BGH games or 3v3s for fun.
You all need to realize you're a small niche market and that the improvements won't cater to you because a lot of the stuff you want really isn't enjoyable for the common user (the awful attacking/movement AI of units in SC, especially if they had to go up ramps, or how unintuitive it was to do a surround because of how bad the pathfinding was)
|
|
|
|