On July 07 2010 16:27 endy wrote: I have a lot of relatives and colleagues who play casually ( = 30 apm, can lose vs cpu ), and I tried to explain to them why SCBW was so good because you had to intensively macro / micro, and how much I disliked automine/mbs/mass selection/smart spell cast. They replied "in real-time strategy there is strategy, it's not the goal to reward the player who clicks the fastest, but the one with the best strategy". Which is quite a logical answer from a 30 apm noob with no multitask skill whatsoever.
Then I replied "in real-time strategy, there is real-time, the fact that time passes in your main base while you are attacking, and have idle probes and empty gateways, is the essence of real-time strategy, go to play heroes of might and magic if you only want pure strategy"
I mean people want to play real-time strategy. Real-time means the theorically perfect play requires infinite speed. It is then normal that people who have huge multitask abilities to perfectly macro/micro/harass/cast spells are rewarded.
I am not saying that SC2 is not a RTS. I am just saying that highly simplified macro/micro part will appeal so much more the casuals/noobs.
I don't really mind that the game will be more noobs friendly, it can still be a game that is hard to master. The problem is that it will make it a lot less enjoyable to watch. When watching it you will not be ":O Flash's barracks macro is so awesome", but just "oh ok, MBS...". You won't be "omg these Jangbi's storms where so amazing", but just "oh well smart cast...".
Agreed completely. You worded it better than I could've. I was just gonna respond to that Cofo guy up top that they are taking out the mutltiasking aspect of bw by adding MBS and automining but u just explained it so well with the real timing thing.
And I understand how selecting over 12 units can be a good thing but imo if that was in BW it would break zvt becuz terran will not have iridate that fast in the game while 24+ mutas all clumped together in one single hotkey.. well i don't even have to explain the imbalance for that. I think terran's would be forced to valkeriyie every game if that happened.
Well, we all saw what 2 control groups of mumtas did vT in that JD vs Iris game...imagine if it were 36...
On July 07 2010 16:27 endy wrote: I have a lot of relatives and colleagues who play casually ( = 30 apm, can lose vs cpu ), and I tried to explain to them why SCBW was so good because you had to intensively macro / micro, and how much I disliked automine/mbs/mass selection/smart spell cast. They replied "in real-time strategy there is strategy, it's not the goal to reward the player who clicks the fastest, but the one with the best strategy". Which is quite a logical answer from a 30 apm noob with no multitask skill whatsoever.
Then I replied "in real-time strategy, there is real-time, the fact that time passes in your main base while you are attacking, and have idle probes and empty gateways, is the essence of real-time strategy, go to play heroes of might and magic if you only want pure strategy"
I mean people want to play real-time strategy. Real-time means the theorically perfect play requires infinite speed. It is then normal that people who have huge multitask abilities to perfectly macro/micro/harass/cast spells are rewarded.
I am not saying that SC2 is not a RTS. I am just saying that highly simplified macro/micro part will appeal so much more the casuals/noobs.
I don't really mind that the game will be more noobs friendly, it can still be a game that is hard to master. The problem is that it will make it a lot less enjoyable to watch. When watching it you will not be ":O Flash's barracks macro is so awesome", but just "oh ok, MBS...". You won't be "omg these Jangbi's storms where so amazing", but just "oh well smart cast...".
Agreed completely. You worded it better than I could've. I was just gonna respond to that Cofo guy up top that they are taking out the mutltiasking aspect of bw by adding MBS and automining but u just explained it so well with the real timing thing.
And I understand how selecting over 12 units can be a good thing but imo if that was in BW it would break zvt becuz terran will not have iridate that fast in the game while 24+ mutas all clumped together in one single hotkey.. well i don't even have to explain the imbalance for that. I think terran's would be forced to valkeriyie every game if that happened.
Well, we all saw what 2 control groups of mumtas did vT in that JD vs Iris game...imagine if it were 36...
Yes that's why I said it would break zvt if it was in BW. I don't know how it factors in sc2 though since I heard mutas can't stack in it(one of the cool micro's in BW completely gone in sc2 :/)
BW was really easy for me to get into, and I'm probably one of the laziest, least challenge-loving gamers you'll ever meet. In most games I play, I use cheats, walkthroughs, mods, anything to let me clear the game as easily and painlessly as possible. Of course that translated later into a highly research oriented attitude towards multiplayer games.
My first forays into b.net were money map comp stomps. My very first one of these I built 5 gateways. A month later I took pride in filling my entire base with production buildings regularly. The concept of it was very linear and obvious. I played Fastest and Zero Clutter for years before a friend introduced me to the pro scene. "Do you know Boxer?" were his first words upon hearing I played Starcraft.
He showed me a replay of Reach vs Chojja on Azalea. Reach went forge FE into sair/reaver. In those 30 minutes my mind, which had been previously handling Starcraft in the most one dimensional ways possible, exploded with the innumerable possibilities that it realized top gamers I had to contend with. I don't know what, or if anything, ticked in me at that time, but I came out with the ardent impression that high level Brood War games brimmed with far too many flavors of awesome to even begin describing.
I agree with you, OP, and I have my own opinions on why all these people cry a lot about noob friendliness.
BW is an extremely mechanical game. A good portion of the D/D+ players I constantly play on iccup probably couldn't tell me why their strategies work, or care about anything else besides winning games. Sites like teamliquid and liquipedia have made finding a strategy optimized by professional gamers very easy. These are the people that then play the computer 30 times to memorize a build-order perfectly and bombing a game every time an opponent interrupts the build. They play opponents who understand their strategies very well, but lose since they are not as mechanically strong. Most of the time this is rightfully so since it takes a lot of practice to develop good BW mechanics.
Naturally, since these players are pretty good at BW they try SC2. It's mechanically simpler, and they're able to get into diamond rank with a couple build orders and gaming knowledge, but then something happens. They start losing to the players that don't have as good mechanics, but understand the strategy better than them. I can't tell you how many posts I've seen from D/D+ BW gamers who ranked very well in the beta. Starcraft 2 wasn't out long enough to create standard play, so mechanical players found themselves wading through mediocrity, the complete opposite of their self-image. Angered by losing to these 'noobs', the mechanical players make themselves feel better by insulting them, and going back to iccup where they can mechanically rip people to shreds.
the only reason why sc2 is more "noob-friendly" is because it's a game from 2010, not 1998. HUGE difference. games back then were a lot harder and every single little detail was never explained to the players. they just had to figure everything out for themselves. different case with sc2 where pretty much everything will be fed to the players (whether that be through in-game tutorials, youtube videos, forums, and the vast depths of the entire internet)
StarCraft 2's easier mechanics definitely makes the game more accessible. I will probably play this game semi-competitively a lot longer than I would StarCraft, because there are so many things build in that make it easy for me to be "fundementally" good. That in turn means I have some amazing and very enjoyable games.
edit: Fewer "cute" defense/units in this game and easier mechanics might take away from the same spectacle that watching Jaedong micro 2 control groups of Mutas or good shuttle reaver so impressive.
On July 07 2010 16:16 ShadeR wrote: I'm sick of this arguement =P. SC2 has brood war as it's grounding to work from. Don't go comparing it's flaws to those of SC1's as if it's even remotely comparable.
IT AINT.
Except as is the case with many sequels. They have very little to work from that tells them what works and what doesn't. Short of directly copying the game, their "experience" from Brood War carries over in less ways than you might think.
On July 08 2010 02:09 hp.Methos wrote: the only reason why sc2 is more "noob-friendly" is because it's a game from 2010, not 1998. HUGE difference. games back then were a lot harder and every single little detail was never explained to the players. they just had to figure everything out for themselves. different case with sc2 where pretty much everything will be fed to the players (whether that be through in-game tutorials, youtube videos, forums, and the vast depths of the entire internet)
Indeed games back in the 90's were much more difficult and definetly gave players a sense of accomplishment when playing. Games these days, PC and console, are so dumbed down and easy to play it breaks my heart
I agree, SC2 may appear to be the easier game but it shouldn't be called a worse game. I used to play BW and it was really frustrating because so many players were ahead. I wasn't that great at BW so the switch to SC2 was an easy one. Personally, I think they are both great games for anyone interested in RTS games.
It won't be as good, but I like how it's more pick up and play. With the new graphics, mbs, automine, and infinite unit select it's so much easier to get my friends into it. Whereas starcraft 1 the very very few people I can get into and want to get better ask me how; I have to point them to like 6-7 different multiple page TL articles and be like "yeah... read that first, get back to me, and we can talk about actually playing the game"
On July 08 2010 08:38 Count9 wrote: It won't be as good, but I like how it's more pick up and play. With the new graphics, mbs, automine, and infinite unit select it's so much easier to get my friends into it. Whereas starcraft 1 the very very few people I can get into and want to get better ask me how; I have to point them to like 6-7 different multiple page TL articles and be like "yeah... read that first, get back to me, and we can talk about actually playing the game"
But really, what do you accomplish if you succeed then? Being good at something easy is not hard, and is no achievement.
I wince every time someone who hasn't been in any tournaments claims that SC2 is too easy. It seems like the people who were really hurt were at the middle of the pack. It's a lot easier to be mediocre now (I proudly bear my mediocrity) but still pretty hard to be truly good; otherwise we'd see a greater variety of faces at the top, which hasn't really happened (and all of them had an RTS background).
I think so. But it'd depend on definition of noob friendly. Mine is that newer players unfamiliar with advanced details can pick it up and enjoy it immediately. Its intuitive and there's modes of gameplay that support it (coop vs ai, single player, matched ladder, team games etc). Easy to learn difficult to master! Perfectly fine imo. (although I wont comment on the mastery part, since I dont consider myself good enough to comment on that)
There is more shit for noobs, but it's the helpful kind:
1. There's a tutorial mode against the comp. 2. The comp actually behaves like a human, it scouts you instead of automatically knowing your location. 3. New features for bad micro noobs. 4. More?
EPT
