It's a well known phenomenon in StarCraft 2 that the super efficient pathfinding increased lethality and reduced defender's advantage compared to the first game. And the game is overall considered to be VERY high lethality with a very weak defender's advantage.
Small fights don't make the difference as noticeable, but larger armies are so much more efficient in SC2 compared to SC1, that it's harder to hold off a larger force with a smaller but better-controlled force. The bigger "deathball" tends to just win, it's harder for someone to come back from an army disadvantage with skillful play.
Another small example there is that "ling runbys" in SC2 are vastly more punishing for even small mistakes in leaving a gap open in a building wall, because a huge number of lings can run through a small gap extremely quickly.
If pathing efficiency is the goal, why not make every unit in an RTS extremely tiny? That would make it more efficient for sure. Or, hell, just turn off unit collision entirely. Or make units all move ultra fast, or get rid of all map choke points? All of these things would improve how efficient pathing is.
Pathing efficiency isn't the goal itself, it's part of the game designer's toolbox. Plenty of things are intentionally pathing-inefficient -- like big, slow units -- as part of the game's design and balance.
The lead designer of Stormgate, which is the closest thing we're gonna have to StarCraft 3 probably, has talked about SC2's pathing efficiency problem himself. Granted, it doesn't sound like he wants StarCraft 1-style pathing, he just wants to compensate for the efficiency in other ways, like maybe making unit hitboxes bigger.
Great insights. The gaming experience and pathfinding relationship can also be expanded to game AI in general. I found Lars Liden's slides specifically mentioning "intelligence! = fun". So, for a better gaming experience, it is better to dumb down the AI.
Well, it really depends on the game and user. Personally I'd love smarter AI in some of my games, for some enemies (I realize that I'd probably hate smart AI in other games).
Like, StarCraft skirmish AI is pretty basic, having a smarter opponent to practice against would be nice. As it stands, I can practice a build vs the AI just to get the timings right, but otherwise the AI is mostly useless because it sucks too much compared to a regular player.
Small fights don't make the difference as noticeable, but larger armies are so much more efficient in SC2 compared to SC1, that it's harder to hold off a larger force with a smaller but better-controlled force. The bigger "deathball" tends to just win, it's harder for someone to come back from an army disadvantage with skillful play.
Another small example there is that "ling runbys" in SC2 are vastly more punishing for even small mistakes in leaving a gap open in a building wall, because a huge number of lings can run through a small gap extremely quickly.
If pathing efficiency is the goal, why not make every unit in an RTS extremely tiny? That would make it more efficient for sure. Or, hell, just turn off unit collision entirely. Or make units all move ultra fast, or get rid of all map choke points? All of these things would improve how efficient pathing is.
Pathing efficiency isn't the goal itself, it's part of the game designer's toolbox. Plenty of things are intentionally pathing-inefficient -- like big, slow units -- as part of the game's design and balance.
The lead designer of Stormgate, which is the closest thing we're gonna have to StarCraft 3 probably, has talked about SC2's pathing efficiency problem himself. Granted, it doesn't sound like he wants StarCraft 1-style pathing, he just wants to compensate for the efficiency in other ways, like maybe making unit hitboxes bigger.