Printable View
Misunderstanding, it's everywhere.
All this can be explained by this phrase: "Units go out of the building in the direction nearest the rally point you set, no matter if the building's door is pointing there, or not".
Setting a rally point = 1 click. Rotating a building = more than 1 click.
DS wasn't talking about "one click". If you used one click everytime, eventually units will get stuck in building traps in whatever direction the rally point is set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
Thus, DS came up with their being waypoints in rallypoint setting, allowing you to set a waypoint for the unit to come out of the barracks in a direction it won't get trapped, and then reset a waypoint in the direction you actually want the unit to go. (Which if you look at his video, there really isn't any evidence to support waypoint rallying, as you can see the player moving the scv)
While building rotation would require a few taps of a key, and or a few clicks in placing the building. Your units will never get trapped because you have placed the front of the building to the outside of a group of buildings, allowing all units to come out untrapped. This also allows you to change the rally point location on all of your buildings at the same time, and only require one click to do so every time you do it.
The rally-point method, however, will have to be redone completely every time you want to set a new rally point, and it can't be done on all buildings at the same time, as different directions will get units caught in different spots. This is actually the more confusing method, and more time consuming. I don't know about you, but I certainly do not set rally points only once a game, however I would rotate each building only once.
Chill on the flaming guys, no need for that.
Anyway..
This is a really, really bad argument. Are you honestly implying that rotating a building is easier than setting a rally point?
Well, only if you suck at placing buildings in the first place...Quote:
DS wasn't talking about "one click". If you used one click everytime, eventually units will get stuck in building traps in whatever direction the rally point is set.
And how is this a bad thing? You CAN actually redo it, unlike building rotation.Quote:
The rally-point method, however, will have to be redone completely every time you want to set a new rally point,
And you can rotate all the buildings at the same time? What?Quote:
and it can't be done on all buildings at the same time, as different directions will get units caught in different spots.
How is shift+right click -> right click (if you want the unit to emerge from the building a specific location) more time consuming than shift+left click -> rotate -> left click (while placing a building)Quote:
This is actually the more confusing method, and more time consuming. I don't know about you, but I certainly do not set rally points only once a game, however I would rotate each building only once.
Rally points are way more flexible, easier and makes it easier to identify buildings compared to building rotation.
Just close this thread. Everything Santrega posts lately makes my head hurt from its stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Mine too. I have no clue how rotating buildings will "help" in anyway. What he doesnt seem to understand is that no matter what, a unit comes out of the building in the direction of the rally point.
He argues that way would cause more traps and such, but how is a unit coming out of a fixed face(that you rotate during placement) gunna cause less traps? If anything more will happen due to the unit having to walk around the building when u change the rally point to behind the building.
You mock at DS about building identification, but this is the basis of your whole point and it's just ridiculous. Seriously, how many times have you ever gotten your units stuck in SC/BW, in a real game? I've had that happen...maybe once, ever? Because I set my buildings up in a stupid fashion. Or, sure, you might see some units getting trapped in a game like this one, which is like one in a million. Yet you act like it's this huge recurring problem that they need to implement a whole new mechanic to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
No, it's called the more flexible method. And again, the "rally-waypoint" thing isn't usually necessary in the real world, where most bases are not hazardous unit death traps they way you seem to think they are.Quote:
The rally-point method, however, will have to be redone completely every time you want to set a new rally point, and it can't be done on all buildings at the same time, as different directions will get units caught in different spots. This is actually the more confusing method, and more time consuming.
Building rotation is unecessary. I don't know how this argument is still going on.
Unnecessary? Yes. But is it detrimental? It certainly improves aesthetics, particularly with regards to campaigns and UMS design. Sometimes, features can appear purely for the sake of looking pretty, such as having SC2 in 3D for instance.
In what way does it improve aesthetics? Indeed, it hurts aesthetics, because now they have to spend time and effort modeling the back of these buildings to look as good as the front.Quote:
It certainly improves aesthetics, particularly with regards to campaigns and UMS design.
By allowing buildings be built/positioned at different angles, a more 'realistic' layout can be made for bases in campaigns. This is particularly useful for, though not limited to, RPG-style maps.
As for the amount of effort on modeling the unseen back portion of the buildings, they already need to. As in WC3, I'm pretty sure the camera can rotate 360 degrees.
We're not discussing rotation for UMS. Of COURSE it should be an option in UMS.
We're discussing it for melee.
It is unnessessary, and in fact detrimental, to the melee game.
I'm pretty sure it can already be done in UMS.
They still have to make the backs of buildings look good anyway, and for multiple reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Anyway, building rotation would only be needed for ones with rectangular bases, which are few from what I understand. The only other issue I see is with Terran add-ons. Perhaps they could allow add-ons to be added anywhere onto the building.
And so far as building exit issues, perhaps they can make a "building exit" option that would allow you to set the direction from which the unit exits, and then have the rally point thing separate from that. I tend to build my base pretty tight in order to form a natural wall against enemies, so this would be helpful.
Perhaps in case there is a reflective surface. i'm thinking the old terran building models, they were so shiny. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
All buildings in sc2 are squares EXCEPT the addons, so wierd rectangular bases shouldn't be a balance issue. Unfortunately, addons screw that all up, so yeah, addons should be placeable anywhere around a building. The problem is that addons automatically connect with buildings that land next to them. It would be more difficult from a programmers perspective to implement this in an intuitive way.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
An alternative I like better is permitting queues as rally points so that a unit that is built, instead of going straight to a point, goes to that point through the path you specify. It works for you problem (set first waypoint to where you want the exit) and is more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
What if the addon built underneath the building?
Might be interesting...
You would click "addon" then suddenly, your barracks would lift up and a new foundation would start building underneath it. When its done, the barracks would land again on top of it, smooth as silk.
2 problems:
1) i dont see a way to destroy it separately (maybe if it were on top...)
2) eliminates one click (placing the addon, which is redundant anyways since you have no choice)
I think that the new SC2 engine will make base layout more easy to navigate but also really annoying for blocking units (esp for melee units).
You could simply create a new model of the building that is facing a distinct direction. You could switch through each model(instead of having the choice to freely turn it, you could only put it in specific angles.) after you select the building. This, however, should only be in single player and the editor. Its too time wasting for multiplayer, that is, if they do it. This would be very much like the Elve farms in War3.
No necromancy in my forum. Thx.