I do not have beta key, this is simply my thoughts on the showing of worker saturation. Its ok, I guess but I would prefer not to have it (full thoughts below)
Seeing professionals mis rally one too many or one too few probes adds drama and intrigue to the game from a spectator pov.
Furthermore, being able to box workers on the mineral line and count them is part of improving your mechanics. In my opinion, it doesnt change much but I would prefer if it wasn't there.
Not only is it cluttering the User Interface, but it is something that doesn't need to be there. We aren't improving an a clunky interface with this change. We are instead making it so that people can not mismanage their economy from a resource collection perspective.
Part of what makes Starcraft Starcraft, is the way in which you need to balance an economy and an army. The fact you need to put effort into managing an economy properly and splitting your attention between army and economy effectively.
In SC2, MBS updated an old interface and improved on coding for a modern game.
In HotS the change that is worker saturation showing is not improving on coding or interface. It is simply making it easier.
I understand it can be helpful and useful for newer players but to have it in ranked ladder is somewhat of a mistake. Practice games, unranked, and non-competitive ladder I can see this small. help new player interface add on as useful. However, to maintain it in competitive play is a poor decision.
Games are decided on making a small mistake of one too many or too few workers on gas. Even at the professional level, for thin thin timings. I like this fact. Like I said before, it adds drama and it makes the game less forgiving at the higher levels. While seeing the worker counts does not make macro or making workers easier, it makes mistakes less likely and near impossible.
I don't want to sound like I am complaining because it makes the game "easy". But it unnecessarily changes a mechanic behind macro (attention to detail) that changes the way the game is spectated and decided. Sometimes, mistakes should be punished. Sometimes, these simple mistakes should not be prevented through hand holding (showing worker counts).
While the game should be made more accessible to retain new players, this change doesn't achieve that goal without also impacting moreso than one might initially think, higher levels of play. This kind of change should be used as a means to teach players about optimal saturation and the concept of economy management. It should not be a constant reminder.
Allow worker saturation in unranked, allow it vs bots, perhaps custom maps as well so that individuals can learn and practice. Other games such as DotA2 which I have recently started playing provide tips and information in some places to teach the game, and disallow this information in the main client during more competitive play. I think the SC2 team can learn from this.
Now, before people start to say "hey, why allow it in customs if it affects high level play?", keep in mind tournaments can have rules disallowing the use of saturation display.
I don't mind specifically if it stays or goes, I understand the reason it is there. However, seeing a pro player mistakenly place 4 probes in gas, and a strong 4 gate is coming (in PvP) the pro with 4 probes in gas could lose thanks to a thin thin timing. The drama is exciting, I like it. It seperates those who pay close attention from those who don't. Mistakes suck and this removes mistakes. That is fine, but it stops rewarding attention to detail which I feel is a key part of starcraft.
I agree on all points, but in the end the voice of the casual playerbase will be heard and there is nothing that can be done. Might as well accept it now.
On September 05 2012 12:53 Megaliskuu wrote: I agree on all points, but in the end the voice of the casual playerbase will be heard and there is nothing that can be done. Might as well accept it now.
Probably, but I hope that this well reasoned post can be read by someone and maybe make them rethink the application of the display for competitive play.
I posted to the bnet forums as a reply to an existing thread as well in hopes of someone seeing it and sitting down then thinking about it from the perspective of those of us who put a lot of time into the game.
Part of what makes sc2 good is difficulty. Its the same reason that people enjoy Dark Souls and Demon Souls, or persona games. They aren't easy. They require patience, thought and skill to learn. Its why I like DotA2 more than LoL. It requires that little extra something that shows hey, you pay attention and you put some focus into getting better.
I agree with most people who say that there needs to be a higher skill ceiling, but I'm adamantly opposed to any games that create difficulty through annoyance.
I see worker saturation being like a muddy Football field. Sure, it's still a fair win/loss if a mistake happens, but inevitably the blame doesn't fall on differences in skill or ability, but a fluke occurrence.
EDIT: To your above point, Dark Souls and Demon Souls are difficult games that are fun because every loss can be attributed to a lack of knowledge or skill. Then take a game like Diablo 3 right at release. Sure, Inferno was hard...but that was because the enemy AI was essentially set to cheat.
In HotS the change that is worker saturation showing is not improving on coding or interface. It is simply making it easier.
It's improving interface.
What I mean is, it is not improving on a players ability to do something with the interface.
It provides at a glance worker saturation at the disadvantage of other things that make a big difference at high levels of play.
Multiple Building Selection is such an example as to why this is different.
MBS not being in BW made macro harder, which meant mechanics were more important. However, really, to add in MBS was an interface improvement because it modernised the game and it came along with technical improvements in coding and how to implement MBS.
For worker saturation, it isn't improving the interface to make the game more playable, instead it is removing the need to have knowledge of worker saturation and basic economy management. This change can achieve its purpose from being in non competitive games such as unranked, custom, and campaign.
It can teach optimal saturation with a reminder at all times.
In HotS the change that is worker saturation showing is not improving on coding or interface. It is simply making it easier.
It's improving interface.
What I mean is, it is not improving on a players ability to do something with the interface.
It's improving the player's ability to tell how many workers they have.
I'll admit, improving interface and making actions easier doesn't always make the game better, more competetive or more fun. But it does make the game easier to play. And making starcraft easier seems to me to be one of blizzard's goals with starcraft 2.
On September 05 2012 13:33 IshinShishi wrote: you can set it off if you want to.
Pretty much this.
While I recognize your concerns with added clutter and additional pro-level drama when the best players make simple mistakes, if you don't like it, turn it off
It feels REALLY bad, this general trend of "easier = better"... but there's potential that it will allow pros to more effectively spend their actions on more interesting things. I think we've gotta let this one play out. My gut reaction is that it's retarded, too, but ultimately it's hard to make an argument that it will negatively effect the competitive scene.
On September 05 2012 13:08 WolfintheSheep wrote: I agree with most people who say that there needs to be a higher skill ceiling, but I'm adamantly opposed to any games that create difficulty through annoyance.
I see worker saturation being like a muddy Football field. Sure, it's still a fair win/loss if a mistake happens, but inevitably the blame doesn't fall on differences in skill or ability, but a fluke occurrence.
EDIT: To your above point, Dark Souls and Demon Souls are difficult games that are fun because every loss can be attributed to a lack of knowledge or skill. Then take a game like Diablo 3 right at release. Sure, Inferno was hard...but that was because the enemy AI was essentially set to cheat.
How is it annoying? I'm sorry but mechanics should be the main threshold for player skill. I have seen post after post after post of people who say that they don't care and that they only want to see the decision making aspect - the strategy aspect remain. People don't even know what they're talking about.
Mechanics includes ALL aspects of gameplay. It is directly entertwined with strategy.
Micro - Macro - multitasking - base management - hand speed (APM) - efficiency. These are all parts of the game that are crucial.
It IS a difference in skill if a player has the speed to constantly check saturation, take new bases, macro, micro and attack in certain areas at the same time. If you just removed macro from the game and left micro and decision making - the game would be TOO easy. This triaging of actions and speed is essential because it seperates the good from the bad.
This new worker count isn't something optional. It lowers the skill cap because it allows every player to have perfect saturation with minimal effort! Instead of boxing, checking each base, while also performing all the other aspects of mechanics, a player can just look at a number, and then move on. Once that tally is reached there is nothing else he/she has to do.
---
Mechanics represent a player's ability to execute a strategy properly. Checking for optimal base saturation, no matter how trivial it may seem - is still another aspect of play that layers into overall execution and should not be removed. Part of what makes Starcraft a good game to play is that these thresholds ARE in place. And that with better mechanics and efficiency you can execute a strategy much better than your opponent.
Though I agree that it shouldn't be in the game, I really dont get ur reasoning. MBS is a fundamental gameplay change while this is purely an interface change, yet ur arguing against MBS while calling to remove something as trivial as this?
Why not argue against the healthbar implementation in sc2? In bw you had to select a unit to see the health. In sc2 this information is always displayed, it clutters up the screen and takes away a lot of the manual targeting skill in bw.
I still don't see the difference between automine, mbs and this. Why are some things just an interface improvement and some make the game easier? Those aren't even incompatible, seems like a random distinction to me.
You gotta think about these things from another perspective. How can you make an argument against one UI interface without making the same argument against other UI interfaces? Imagine if unit supply was never displayed before on the UI, not even in SC1. Would it not increase a players mechanics and skill level to keep track of supply in their head? Would adding a supply count to the UI then not decrease the level of skill needed to play the game? So why do we allow supply count to be shown and not worker count? What specifically makes supply count a necessary thing to show and worker counter not? Frame the discussion against worker count with that in mind and you'd have a much stronger argument.
The real problem for me is not that it displays "17/24", it's that it displays " /24". Telling me how many workers I have with one less action on my part is fine with me -- telling me that I'm supposed to put X on minerals and Y on gas is not. If I were new to the game, I wouldn't be glad to know that 24 is full saturation, I would think that I was supposed to build exactly 24 workers and stop.
If you click on your geysers, it says "Current Harvesters: X". Why not put that same line in the display for the CC/Nexus/Hatchery? There's room between the name of the building and the progress bar for building workers. That would be the same thing, but without ugly numbers superimposed all over my screen, easily accessible for those who want the information at a glance, and not so "bro you should make four more scvs, that's optimal you know" in-your-face.
On September 05 2012 13:33 IshinShishi wrote: you can set it off if you want to.
Pretty much this.
While I recognize your concerns with added clutter and additional pro-level drama when the best players make simple mistakes, if you don't like it, turn it off
That argument doesn't work in a multiplayer game. We could say the same for the in-game clock, but why would you intentionally disadvantage yourself?
On September 05 2012 21:23 Yoduh wrote: You gotta think about these things from another perspective. How can you make an argument against one UI interface without making the same argument against other UI interfaces? Imagine if unit supply was never displayed before on the UI, not even in SC1. Would it not increase a players mechanics and skill level to keep track of supply in their head? Would adding a supply count to the UI then not decrease the level of skill needed to play the game? So why do we allow supply count to be shown and not worker count? What specifically makes supply count a necessary thing to show and worker counter not? Frame the discussion against worker count with that in mind and you'd have a much stronger argument.
This.
we all have broodwar bias. Getting good at broodwar means practicing all sorts of little skills. it means having no idea how one's opponent has crushed him. It means being rewarded for practicing several very specific skills that allow one to eek out an advantage.
Essentially the argument is that "small skills that were once beneficial in a great RTS game (BW) ought to be skills in any competitive and balanced RTS game"
so my counter argument is, who is to say what a good RTS player is supposed to be good at? Yes people were astoundingly good at Broodwar and those who understood their skill were amazed. But This is not a good reason to make all Skill in RTS games demonstrated through small things that are really hard to do properly. I argue that it is actually a weakness of Broodwar as a game that it was impossible to execute *simple* strategies and tactics unless ridiculous level of skill has first been achieved.
One of the advantages of PC gaming is how much control it allows a person over what occurs on screen. The depth of control keyboard and mouse allow is great. Therefore it is a misuse of the platform to make actions difficult to execute for the sake of high level play. The game should aim to portray a player's skill through unit control and planning. I do not know exactly what makes a balanced RTS but i believe this is the wrong approach. Why not units that are really sensitively controlled. Make them potentially really good, or potentially disastrous. An example of what i have in mind is the fighting in dark souls.
You also argue: "i like the suspense of seeing someone mess up something small and getting screwed over".(paraphrase). Firstly this may does not promote balance. A small thing going wrong should not make someone lose. That would mean better players lose more often. that is not what competitive people want. I can translate this argument to make it more compelling though: "a player's ability to keep track of everything and then prioritize things ought to offer him an advantage or a disadvantage to illustrate skill." To this i respond, that i agree with your premise but not with your idea of how to remedy it.
I believe arguments like this are a result of people expecting any work they have put in to transfer to future success. To this i say, in life not all or any work comes into fruition. That said, sometimes these skills transfer in unseeable ways. for example those who learned to count workers really well can now scout opponents more effectively by being able to count workers fast and not eat up too much of their concentration?
EPT
