The API Blizzard is exposing is really nice. Sadly most of the advantages AI had in SC1 were just due to the fact that an automated process could micro-manage the tasks the game didn't automate for you (a lot of boring, repetitive work). SC2 got rid of a lot of that while still allowing room for innovative and overpowered tactics to be discovered (MarineKing's insane marine micro, SlayerS killing everyone with blue flame hellions, some more recent stuff I'm sure from the newest expansions). Hopefully the API lets AIs converge on optimal resource management and get to exploring new and innovative timings, transitions, army makeups, etc.
I'm afraid that I'm essentially nitpicking here, but the games don't really compare that linearly.
For one, "insane micro" was around before SC2 and was more of a deciding factor in BW than SC2. For instance, if you pay attention and analyze pro games you'll notice that macro (the boring repetitive work) that you think was flushed out from BW was actually just translated into other, equally monotonous tasks in SC2. Also, SC2's fights (outside of early skirmishes) are MUCH more based around creating concaves or fighting in favorable positions, and not actual micro. In BW micro is far more of a deciding factor in fights. (see: any pro-game fight consisting of supply over approximately 120 aka deathball)
Another thing, MarineKingPrime didn't really "invent" marine micro, he just excelled at it. And SlayerS isn't a player, it's a team name.
For the last part regarding optimal resource management and exploring timings and makeups, build orders have been virtually completely fleshed out and maximized. There really isn't much that say, 1000 APM (just a stupidly high impossible number to represent computer APM) could do that 300 APM (pro player human APM) couldn't in terms of gaining an early advantage in build orders.
Yes, very nitpicky. MarineKingPrime didn't invent marine micro but he was known for it/popularized in the early GSL seasons before it became a standard tactic. SlayerS (the team) dominated MLG Anaheim with blue flame hellions and basically caused them to get nerfed if I recall.
I don't believe he's being that nitpicky. Brood War had a lot of micro, including marine micro...
Boxer (SlayerS_Boxer is who I think you are referring to, as he also played starcraft 2) was well known for having really insane marine micro in the community before SC2 even came out. Starcraft 2 was just way bigger in the west so more people over here associate MarineKingPrime with micro than brood war pros.
I guess what I was trying to say, in general, was that since SC2 required less micromanagement of your macro (auto-harvesting, etc), players had more free time to spend on unit tactics.
In GSL season 2, MarineKing showed that stimmed marines could counter banelings. Then the rest of the playerbase quickly adapted his tactics.
At MLG Anaheim (2013), the SlayerS terrans (ie multiple members of the SlayerS team) placed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th and destroyed all zergs with their blue flame hellion play.
Those are just two examples of the sorts of tactics that once discovered are quickly assimilated into the metagame and quickly go from innovative to standard play. So my hope was that AI could speed up the pace of tactical innovation.
You think so? My impression is that SC2 had a lot more of repetitive tasks you had to do. E.g. wall off the ramp, send a worker scouting, ... and you have to perform certain actions every X seconds (like using chrono boost). A lot or mastering the game is rote learning, and polishing a build order. Another big part is constantly scouting and reacting to what the enemy is doing.
Due to those reasons I found SC2 a bit tedious (it was still fun, just felt more like work than SC1). Granted, this is maybe because I played SC1 more on LAN, and there wasn't all the metagame going on. But I think SC2 really does focus on "grinding" and rote learning to get better, probably this was chosen to make it more "eSports"-like.
If I would get to design a SC2.5 or SC3, I would remove all the rote - the actions you always have to perform - and I would give the player the opportunity to trade off more between macro and micro.
Actually, it would be cool if you could "research" certain AI features in game for a cost. For example, have one upgrade that micros your marines like a pro, or positions your units in sensible formations. Another player could counter this with a "radio jam" ability, that would make your units in an area take bad formations, or be controlled by a very simple AI. And if you are good at micro, you could save the update, or invest it in an update that makes macro simpler. And so on, I think there are a lot of things one could explore there. Maybe opening SC2 to AI exploration can lead to such gameplay innovations.
It's an absolute fact. Here are a few things that reduced the necessary repetitive action count considerably compared to SC1:
1. Larger control groups
2. Worker queues (including sending them to the resource patches)
3. Smart casting (no longer have to select individual units to correctly chain cast certain AOE spells)
4. Pathfinding actually works now so no need to click 15 times to get a unit where you want it to go.
> I played SC1 more on LAN, and there wasn't all the metagame going on.
Almost only in LANs, not un-competitively, but not "professionally" and not in ladders. I was more of a Counter-Strike dude when it came to competitive play.
I find the characters of the games very different, and the difference might be LAN vs BattleNet rather than SC1/BW vs SC2 (although Blizzard did emphasize certain aspects more in SC2).
I never played SC1 with contorted arms, frantically hitting the keyboard, nervously checking my production buildings. It was more like, lets build a pretty base, and then settle the age old question: Battlecruisers or Carriers?
I don't think I've even seen a wall-off. We probably would have laughed at how ridiculous it was to misuse a building like that, especially since you couldn't lower your supply depots.
Sometimes we would have ridiculous battles over secondary bases - in modern play, you would punish a player who overextends and go to their base, but back then that would have killed the fun. While you might have won, you would have been considered a spoilsport.
I think the idea of spending to upgrade your helper AI sounds really interesting and potentially novel, but it's important to push back a little bit on the idea of "removing all the rote" from an RTS. day[9] (ex Broodwar pro, current caster of many games) probably makes the argument better than I can here: https://youtu.be/EP9F-AZezCU?t=55, but one of the important implications of having repetitive aspects in an RTS is that they turn the player's attention into a resource. You can either concentrate on microing your units to squeeze the most possible value out of them, or you can focus on hitting every single production cycle back at base, but you can't do both at the same time, so deciding when to focus on what becomes part of the game. Additionally, it allows for some crazy "overcoming the odds" scenarios where a small number of units can pull off a surprising win because the player was willing to donate far more attention to them than usual. Basically, an RTS where you don't feel like you have too much to do all at once is really more like a turn based strategy game (which can be fun too).
It would just be a game for a different audience, casual vs. pro-gamer. Now casual sounds nasty and makes you think of candy crush - god forbid... I mean somebody who plays as a hobby, sometimes in the evening, but doesn't train for the game. For one, I can't put in the hours required anymore with a full-time job and a family. For another, the way we used to play RTSs (~2000) on small LANs was very different. Still competitive, but somehow more relaxed. Exactly this "managing your attention" aspect was missing, so the early game was more like a building strategy game, and the late game was less paper-scissor-stone and more about outwitting your enemy.
I think SC2 is fine as it is, for what it is. I would not want to take that away from anybody in a potential version 3; but I think there is space for a more casual game in the StarCraft universe, thus "SC2.5".
Let's go down the list of things Flash needs to do:
He needs to click on every one of his production structures every 15-19 seconds, and click M or C. Otherwise, no army.
He needs to click on every one of his command centers every 13 seconds, and click s. Otherwise, no workers.
He then needs to tell every newly built worker to go mine, otherwise they just stand around doing nothing.
He needs to build supply depots roughly every 20 seconds, or his entire production grinds to a halt.
His army consists of well over a hundred marines and medics, which Flash needs to stim, split, and maneuver to take on lurkers and defilers who will crush him in an unmicro'd fight.
His science vessels need to be irradiating defilers constantly to prevent the Zerg reaching critical mass, while dodging scourge using the Chinese triangle technique.
If Flash just clicks his science vessel hotkey and casts irradiate, every ship on that control group will waste its irradiate on the same target - he needs to manually select each vessel before casting spells.
His entire army, and his scans, must be controlled with just 10 group hotkeys of at most 12 units each. Except for buildings, of which you can have at most 1 hotkeyed.
To maximize speed of his army going up and down ramps, he needs to spam-click the move command. A single instruction causes the units at the back to spaz out and take a long time to do anything.
As the above implies, Brood War unit AI is terribad.
Which means everything Flash does above needs to be double and triple checked to ensure the AI doesn't decide to go off and pick its nose. Building supply depots was especially bad for this.
Brood War is a game that no human being will ever play perfectly. Even the top tier professionals, like Flash, Bisu, or Jaedong, can't do all of the above all the time - they have to prioritize some activities over others and treat their actions per minute like a resource the same as minerals and gas.
>Granted, this is maybe because I played SC1 more on LAN, and there wasn't all the metagame going on. But I think SC2 really does focus on "grinding" and rote learning to get better, probably this was chosen to make it more "eSports"-like.
Starcraft 2 is a game I could get to masters league in, despite only playing make a few hours a week for a month or two. In Brood War, that much practice wouldn't get you D ranking on ICCUP. Everything about SC2 is designed from the ground up to lower the grinding, remove the muscle memory requirement (you don't get to "play" Protoss in BW until you can hit your P key blindfolded), and encourage new or unskilled players to get on and play. At that it succeeded, albeit kind of at the cost of its professional scene.
Mid-way through WoL and again shortly after launch of HoTS.
I played BW a lot as a kid, and the fundamental concepts carry over pretty decently. Always build workers, don't get supply blocked, expand as fast as your opponent lets you get away with, never let your resources bank, upgrades are always worth it, etc. etc.
As I recall someone in WoL actually went from bronze to masters building literally no units except marines, medivacs, and scvs to prove the point raw mechanics are all you need to carry you up the ladder.
To be fair marines and medivacs are amazing units in WoL. The same likely wouldn't apply with most other two unit combo. Roach ling maybe, maybe blink stalkers.
I really like the idea of a helper AI that takes high level commands and handles the manual dexterity aspect of the game. That would make RTS games a lot more attractive for someone like me who prefers simple, thoughtful games rather than complex games with a steep learning curve.
