Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The StarCraft path-finding hack

codeofhonor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#81

Post by thisisnotatest »

I got a kick of reading about how this hack was one of the things that enabled StarCraft to be released. As an eager 12-year-old, it seemed like I couldn't get it soon enough. But as a software engineer now, I can't stop cringing at this story.

So much of the discussion here is focusing on SC and SC2. What about the software development aspect of this story?

What's the moral of Patrick Wyatt's tale? I mean, it's hard to argue that there's some parallel universe where Blizzard did things differently and StarCraft was an even BIGGER success. What would that even look like -- it became the national pastime of several countries, instead of just one? Yet I can't help but think how expensive it must have been for them to have made these poor decisions in design, implementation, and planning, each one compounding on top of all the previous ones, constantly delaying their launch.

So is the moral of the story, "here's why you shouldn't code for 'two months from launch' mode"? Or is it, "when the chips are down, you can take or leave all your fancy MVCs and UMLs, they don't make the difference between a mega-blockbuster and a dud or vaporware"?

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#82

Post by hlvn »

GavinB wrote: post #24
CyrusL wrote: post #5

One of the reasons Starcraft is interesting as an e-sport is because bugs like this have kept the game in racial balance for over a decade. For example, the game was not designed to give mutalisks the ability to stack on top of each other. However, at some point in the early 2000s, it was discovered that when 11 mutalisks were grouped with 1 overlord, the mutas tended to stack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfqQYJzq…

Is changing the behavior of a group of units because it happens to be grouped with a distant unit really a good thing for the game? It makes for a good story, and it's great fun for the person who discovers it. Players like it, because it lets them beat new players even more easily. But players don't always know what's best for them. This is why Starcraft 2 multiplayer is structured to force players to play on compli…

I think you grossly overestimate Blizzard's grasp of balance when compared to the SC/SC2 communities' grasp of balance. Compare the solutions and balance opinions of Dustin "Rocks are Balanced" Browder to Sean "Day[9]" Plott, for example.

In the mutalisk stacking example, it ended up being a very good thing in terms of metagame balance. At the time, top Zerg players were having tremendous problems breaching Terran static defenses, and it proved to be relatively "fair" for them to have that option in the mid-game. Also worth noting is that just because it's simple doesn't make it easy; it still required good APM/Micro to manage and a solid understanding of the magic-boxing techniques.

Even now, in SC2, the idea that workers don't collide with each other when given a command to mine a remote mineral patch is necessary at high levels of play to use the drone drilling technique in order to avoid a pylon ramp-block, which is an extremely simple technique for the protoss to use, but disproportionately difficult situation for the Zerg to deal with. Even with the drone drilling technique, it's still relatively uphill and requires good micro. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9CA9AahV1E )

As for the complicated "Blizzard Approved" maps, they're present in the ladders, but most have tweaks. Of particular note are the GSL (A/THE pro-league in south korea) maps that actually include a neutral supply depot at the bottom of the main ramp to prevent pylon ramp-blocks from being viable so as to prevent drone drilling from being necessary.

Similarly, KESPA (korean e-sports association) was one of the driving forces for map balance in brood war, and their version of the Lost Temple was considered very balanced for reasons much more strategically significant than "people like it".

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#83

Post by [deleted] »

omni wrote: post #71
edias wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What your describing is called the drone drill, where you have all the workers attack at once, but this is a trick only used for dealing with the 3 pylon block (something banned in tournamnet play) as zerg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9CA9AahV1E How the pathing trick is actually used to deal with zerglings is to have them walk ontop of the zerglings with the mineral trick and then attack, causing the workers to s…

I wasn't aware that competitive StarCraft had ever banned anything that was intended by the game engine, and Google isn't turning up anything. Could you provide a source?

[deleted]

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#84

Post by ygra »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #33
GavinB wrote: post #3

The Protoss Carrier regularly lagged behind other units because it had its own way of doing … everything. The Carrier should have been scrapped entirely and replaced with a different air unit. Even to the latest upgrades of Starcraft I, the AI simply couldn't deal with the carrier effectively--they would always attack the interceptors first. This made using the carrier a cheap game-breaking trick against the computer…

From what I understand it was pretty problematic to multiplayer too, since with a bunch of carriers it becomes difficult to manually target them behind all the interceptors.

Depending on the units you had at your disposal it needed a little practice or was really easy. A bunch of marines with medics (or hydralisks) for example just kill the interceptors quickly enough so carriers aren't a threat anymore. Goliaths worked very well with their range upgrade. Psi storms work wonders and don't even need to be targeted that accurately. There are plenty of cheap and easy options against carriers but I guess as usual with such high-level threats, you shouldn't let your opponent get to the point where they can employ them or at least stay informed on what they do so you can react accordingly.

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#85

Post by Paradigma11 »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #66

I've been curious for a while as to how path-finding gets implemented in real world games. For example, the common algorithm appears to be A* where you use some heuristic to guess the most efficient path but update the path when you find another is more efficient (for example you hit a large wall on the first path). This is easy enough when you have only one moving object (because you can just compute that path at th…

you can find tons of information here: http://aigamedev.com/ the most interesting stuff is behind a paywall, tough.

Re: The StarCraft path-finding hack

#87

Post by endtime »

GavinB wrote: post #22
endtime wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're interested, here's the video (recorded by a SC1 pro) that catalyzed the SC1 behavior being recreated in the SC2 expansion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM

So the question is, should weird, hard to detect and buggy behavior that experienced players can exploit be kept as part of the game? It's a highly subjective and, to me, non-obvious answer. Players get very attached to timing and knowledge based tricks, especially ones that give them an advantage. Does that mean they should get them? There's a tricky balance between alienating new players and rewarding skill and ded…

I think "creative use of game mechanics" is a large part of what makes e-sports popular. Boxer (the Michael Jordan, or perhaps Babe Ruth, of pro-gaming) wasn't popular so much for his mediocre mechanics or even his good micro,but primarily for his creativity.

Games with matchmaking systems don't need to dumb the game down in order for players to be able to play against each other and each have a roughly even chance of winning.

I'm not a SC1 purist - I'm happy I can rally workers to minerals from a base, and I even like the automining feature at the start of games in HoTS. But removing APM sinks and removing interesting/subtle unit mechanics are two very different things.

Post reply on HN