Thread 718957696

Why didn't Starcraft simulate projectiles to escape cookbook gameplay?

>>718957696 (OP)
Well, one is an RTS, while the other is a MOBA.

>>718958752
What are you, a Starcraft baby that didn't know how to deal with trench warfare?

TA sucks

Because it adheres to "easy to learn, difficult to master" design philosophy, or to reframe it in perspective better suited to answer the question
>if you add crunch, there's almost guaranteed to be unseen-for interactions that can be used to break the game, so it's better to stick to smaller number of interactions
Which, given that there's still slight strategic novelties in Brood War on standard maps and major novelties on nonstandard maps, is a testament to success of that design (SC2 has also benefited from it, but it's been patched for longer) - added crunch would almost certainly have made the game "solvable" although I would propose that if you add ENOUGH, solving the game often becomes intractable and you return to the point where you don't care about exact details of combat resolution mechanics and instead play it by the ear

Besides, seeing as that sharpnel shells have been used since the Napoleonic Wars and proper air burst projectiles since WW1, in a sense the bottom is a more accurate depiction of how artillery functions...

>>718957696 (OP)
I like that total annihilation has projectile mapping but the games do basically nothing interesting with it.

And this includes Zero-K and BaR.

Only franchise to do simulated projectiles right is myth, because you really care when a Dwarven molotov goes slightly off course.

>>718957696 (OP)
>cookbook gameplay
I can't decipher what this is

>>718959540
It's also a purely tactical game, so having more detail at this level of control and simulation makes perfect sense.

You can also dodge arrows/javelins, especially on faster units like berserkers. A pretty important part of managing the game on higher difficulties. Like, imagine doing Into the Breach in M2 without this option.

>>718959639
its the idea that the majority of RTS gameplay boils down to following the most efficient series of steps as quickly and efficiently as possible with the victor decided by who can follow their endgame combat flowchart of micro actions faster.
I guess OP is saying that having variable terrain ass more complexity to the micro troop combat but in my opinion all it does is add more steps tot he flowchart.

>>718960947
>all it does is add more steps tot he flowchart.
In a genre where time is at a premium and doing such a thing costs time, this significantly changes match-ups and what people are capable of. The most extreme example would be island maps, but even something simpler like rush distances determines what builds are possible to use at a high level.

>>718959892
No, I don't think that matters.
Like, in myth, the randomness of the projectiles is almost always a detriment to the player.

I honestly would love to see someone build a BAR or Zero-K styled RTS with a focus on highly unreliable units.

Or even a Startcraft style game.

People love gambling. RTS needs more highroll unpredictable options that are actually worth trying.