4 ms·

nice writing. I think you have a good point with the "death-ball" approach. I haven't seen it put it that way. I'm a big SC:BW fan. I haven't played in a whil

nice writing. I think you have a good point with the "death-ball" approach. I haven't seen it put it that way. I'm a big SC:BW fan. I haven't played in a while but I love watching it, and I feel like the competitive RTS market is something that is waiting for a hero. SC2 really isn't it, for a multitude of reasons. (balled groups of units being one of them, imo) Frost Giant's first technical demo (presented in "the pylon show" forget which episode) was a "perfect flocking simulator" showing how the machine could multi-threaded handle 100 million units around a complex maze. I hated it. Give me the chaos of units bumping into each other and trying to find the optimal way with other moving agents in the way. Maybe not quite as bad as Dragoons and SCVs, but similar. There's the certain aspect of suspense and excitement that BW pro games have compared to SC2. "we all know that the unit has to move there and shoot, but will it get there in time? have they given it orders fast enough? is something going to block it?" -- it really ads to the atmosphere of excitement, knowing that the perfect play isn't going to be possible.

dragontamer 4y ago
> competitive RTS market is something that is waiting for a hero Really try Age of Empires 2. Its having a mild renaissance right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3HupyXyKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3HupyXyKQ Sure, its over 20 years old now, but its still getting new DLC, updates, and balance patches today.
- drekipus 4y ago
  I'm 8 minutes in and the presentation level is astounding. And with the red-bull sponsorship I'm sure this has got a bit of the cash behind it to keep such a great presentation. Thanks for the link, I will definitely keep an eye out for this. I'll be watching the rest of this video through the day I think.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I think the biggest difference from Starcraft vs AoE2 is that AoE2 has random maps. So while a map archetype has preset elements (ex: Arabia always has 8 sheep, 2 boars, 6 berries, 4-woodlines, 3 gold groups and 2 stone groups near your start), you don't actually know where they are. Both players also start in a somewhat random position (players know the general area to scout), but the game is one of discovery. You need to scout the map, understand and explore, and then decide where to place strategic castles (or other defensive buildings), and where / how you'll fight. ------- Beyond that, AoE2 has a lot of bonus damage, especially compared to Starcraft. A Halberdier normally 6 damage, but will deal +32 bonus damage vs Cavalry (for a total of 38). Unit matchups are therefore more complex than Starcraft (sure, there's bonuses like Banelings vs light armor, or Immortals vs armored enemies), but nothing quite as gross as the bonus damage you have to memorize. (Skirmishers beat Archers. Scouts beat monks. Halberdier beats cavalry. Swordmen beat trash)
    - kcexn 4y ago
      I really think that the randomised maps definitely add a component of strategy and depth to AoE2 I definitely don't think that unit matchups are more complex than in Starcraft, there are simply more interactions and possible matchups than starcraft because of the larger number of different units. Starcraft's heavy emphasis on execution and APM means that very subtle changes to units can dramatically change matchups. Environmental positioning, micro management of units, healing, flanking etc. All change engagement outcomes. AoEs damage bonuses are easier to understand and requires less practise and expertise to squeeze every last point of damage out. I'd love to see a version of Starcraft that has randomised maps instead of the fixed rotation that we currently have. It'd make playing at lower levels more fun since smart thinking would play a heavier role than rote memorization of build orders and times. And at high levels of play I think we'd see more exciting clutch moments as the best players with the best execution improvise their way through fights. Unfortunately it would mean that the tight balance between all the different units in Starcraft would necessarily be relaxed and made more resilient to small changes. Right now, whenever new map rotations are introduced, some maps are considered unbalanced because small variations in widths of bridges or placements of obstacles favour one race over others.

dragontamer 4y ago

> competitive RTS market is something that is waiting for a hero Really try Age of Empires 2. Its having a mild renaissance right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3HupyXyKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3HupyXyKQ Sure, its over 20 years old now, but its still getting new DLC, updates, and balance patches today.

drekipus 4y ago
I'm 8 minutes in and the presentation level is astounding. And with the red-bull sponsorship I'm sure this has got a bit of the cash behind it to keep such a great presentation. Thanks for the link, I will definitely keep an eye out for this. I'll be watching the rest of this video through the day I think.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I think the biggest difference from Starcraft vs AoE2 is that AoE2 has random maps. So while a map archetype has preset elements (ex: Arabia always has 8 sheep, 2 boars, 6 berries, 4-woodlines, 3 gold groups and 2 stone groups near your start), you don't actually know where they are. Both players also start in a somewhat random position (players know the general area to scout), but the game is one of discovery. You need to scout the map, understand and explore, and then decide where to place strategic castles (or other defensive buildings), and where / how you'll fight. ------- Beyond that, AoE2 has a lot of bonus damage, especially compared to Starcraft. A Halberdier normally 6 damage, but will deal +32 bonus damage vs Cavalry (for a total of 38). Unit matchups are therefore more complex than Starcraft (sure, there's bonuses like Banelings vs light armor, or Immortals vs armored enemies), but nothing quite as gross as the bonus damage you have to memorize. (Skirmishers beat Archers. Scouts beat monks. Halberdier beats cavalry. Swordmen beat trash)
  - kcexn 4y ago
    I really think that the randomised maps definitely add a component of strategy and depth to AoE2 I definitely don't think that unit matchups are more complex than in Starcraft, there are simply more interactions and possible matchups than starcraft because of the larger number of different units. Starcraft's heavy emphasis on execution and APM means that very subtle changes to units can dramatically change matchups. Environmental positioning, micro management of units, healing, flanking etc. All change engagement outcomes. AoEs damage bonuses are easier to understand and requires less practise and expertise to squeeze every last point of damage out. I'd love to see a version of Starcraft that has randomised maps instead of the fixed rotation that we currently have. It'd make playing at lower levels more fun since smart thinking would play a heavier role than rote memorization of build orders and times. And at high levels of play I think we'd see more exciting clutch moments as the best players with the best execution improvise their way through fights. Unfortunately it would mean that the tight balance between all the different units in Starcraft would necessarily be relaxed and made more resilient to small changes. Right now, whenever new map rotations are introduced, some maps are considered unbalanced because small variations in widths of bridges or placements of obstacles favour one race over others.