|
I had recently thought of this interface rework for Brood War. This is purely hypothetical and probably not interesting for anyone but myself, so be warned. With the enduring popularity of Brood War it might be topical, but for me it is primarily an investigation in a road not taken.
The conceptual background for this lies in finding a golden middle for the interface design which maintains the idea that limited selection has certain benefits while acknowledging that it can be oppressive for especially beginning players. If anyone has an interest in knowing my full reasons for preferring aspects of BW's interface and engine design over SC2 they are free to ask, but this is not intended as a polemic. Nevertheless it will be assumed that there are benefits.
The history of unit selection in Blizzard RTS is interesting and probably well-known these days:
( source) Unlike Dune 2, which only allowed the user to select a single unit at a time, and which necessitated frenzied mouse-clicking to initiate joint-unit tactical combat, it was obvious that enabling players to select more than one unit would speed task-force deployment and dramatically improve game combat. ... after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
It should be noted that there might have been other motivations behind the choice for a limit, though this is only speculation. There could have been aesthetic considerations about how to effectively highlight selected units without cluttering the screen and how to represent the selection in the interface. Perhaps it was intended to discourage players from building up a vast army, which would tax the engine and reveal flaws in the pathfinding, as is alluded on in the article. Performance concerns could have been a factor, that is to say that although unlimited selection has always been a technical possibility, it would come with downsides that are independent of gameplay and might possibly be overcome by more streamlined design and technology improvements.
Regardless of the reasoning here, what is interesting is that for many installments and versions Blizzard kept tweaking the selection limit, slowly building up confidence to take the final step and eliminate it altogether. We started out with four, moved to nine in Warcraft II, briefly experimented with a variable selection limit in the development of Starcraft (eight for protoss, twelve for zerg) before finally settling on twelve and maintaining this number for Warcraft III. And even the continuity in the last transition represents an increase given the vastly lower scale on which Warcraft III plays out. There is ample precedent for considering the exact balance of the selection limit as an important question that needed to be answered in development.
If anyone is interested in the reasoning for the removal of the selection limit in Starcraft 2, Rob Pardo talks about it here.
-------------
To continue with concrete design thoughts, one might surmise from the previous section that the intention behind the limit is to add some sort of tax to army control that would give certain high level structural benefits. I don't think it was intended to discriminate between different units. A look at the development history shows that Blizzard was already aware of this by putting in place different limits per race for the Brood War alpha, although they abandoned this course of action. Zerg and terran, with its many smaller units that form the core of their armies are more severely punished by the selection limit than is protoss with its fewer, more fearsome units. Furthermore, some unit ideas like broodlings and locusts can end up mired with implementation details to overcome the drawback of being smaller.
There are also general drawbacks to units of lavish prices because of the interaction between game mechanics based on targeting individual units, too many to name*, but certainly including selection which can count as a game mechanic targeting a set number of units. This can be seen in the ease with which large armies of carriers or battlecruisers might be controlled. Brood War is such a wonderful game that almost every unit had some depth to its control and I'll concede that the lack of functional selection limit did not exactly make carriers unstoppable at the professional level. Nevertheless, you can still see these sort of effects play out in games of casual players that prefer their golden armada precisely for its ease of control.
*+ Show Spoiler +
Some examples would be the larva system which allows the zerg to overwhelm you with units like the ultralisk because they have virtually no production costs. There is no impediment beside cost, unlike terran and protoss that also require an upscale in production as they move up the tech tree. Another example would be the many spells like neural parasite and abduct, which can will always require razor edge balance because of the lack of functional massive flag. The thor and its history of pathfinding problems is another one. A more obscure yet instructive problem with the thor lies in its interaction with the medivac which has potential for abuse because it unloads instantly opposed to the trickle of marines. Another issue that has cropped up in beta was that certain thor rushes would be powerful because in the early game the thor can deal full damage until it dies, which if you compare it to a group of marines will have a gradual reduction in damage output. All of this can be balanced around, of course, and these units might add a certain charm to the game, but I think it's useful to be aware of these concerns.
If one follows this line of thinking the next natural step would be to investigate if selection cost scaling with unit resource cost is a worthwhile mechanic.
That was just my original thought, though of course it looks quite clumsy. If taken literally virtually all units would take up a different number of spots and complication would ensue. Nevertheless it can be streamlined significantly by abandoning most of the concept and looking at the cases it is supposed to solve, i.e. zerglings, marines and capital units. I thought that starting from the 12 unit selection limit one could delineate a category of smaller units that would take up only half a spot, much like how a zergling takes up only half a larva and half of one supply. The second special category would be units like the carrier and battlecruiser, maybe the guardian and ultralisk, that would take up two spots. All other units would take up one spot, and the twelve unit limit could be maintained or probably extended to sixteen. One odd, but great thing about Starcraft is that the smaller units are actually the core units that are most important for gameplay dynamics, so that this changes targets units you are using frequently. And conceptually it might be good to privilege core units and ensure their functionality.
One perk of this concept is the following: you can abandon single building selection and integrate buildings with general selection while still keeping with the tradition of limits, by using this system and making it so that buildings take up four spots so that you can only select up to four buildings at once. I fancy this is also easier to publicly defend because there is a logic and consistency behind the mechanic. Some limitation on multiple building selection will seem like the logical outcome of the way that the mechanics for selection work, rather than being merely an arbitrary decision.
Honestly, I personally do think that the selection limit is oppressive for Brood War and should be somewhat more lax. Coming from Warcraft 3, single building selection was difficult for me to adjust to. This post was an attempt to devise a system that allows for more careful tuning of the precise limit so that the sweet spot can be found where it still has strategic implications but doesn't erect a barrier for most new players. You can still not select an entire army at once, but using zerglings is less burdensome. You still need to employ care managing your hatcheries, but physically clicking through them is much less taxing.
One last point is that is that Starcraft 2, although introducing MBS to the Starcraft series, actually already has some innovations that substantially reduce the need for this mechanic. Marine production is doubled by using the reactor, nevertheless it takes only one click. Hatcheries cooperate with queens to produce much more than three larva at once. Therefore you need less barracks and less hatcheries. The argument for chronoboost is weaker, but then protoss doesn't suffer much for these mechanics to begin with.
|
i still believe that one of the most damning things about SC2 and it's development from day 1 was the removal of limited unit selection and MBS... it's such an amazing system in that it forces players to commit to their playstyles, allowing people to really flourish and do what they want in a way that sc2 and other modern rts can't match. it adds another resource to the game, in that your attention and ability to function under pressure becomes a major defining factor between a good player and jaedong... JD is able to macro from 5 different bases while still controlling his army well.. in SC2, any foreigner can put all of his hatches on one hotkey and get similar macro performance.. the difference is in BW you would get completely fucked up, so you had to choose "ok ill lose this fight so that i have time to macro" or "ill fight and macro sloppily for 30 seconds, but ill win the fight," and those meaningful choices are what differentiated players.. the higher you got up in skill, the more perfect the play got.. what i despise about SC2 is there aren't choices like that, despite the artificial limiting of macro by macro mechanics
the extent to which players should be limited is a good discussion to have, because it is retarded to have a unit selection of 1 and it's retarded to have unlimited. BW is balanced around 12, and it works with 12, so many people default to 12.
limited selection also solves death balls to a point.. you can't move your army as a whole unless you're VERY fast, and even then you're still giving up attention that could go elsewhere just to reposition yourself. Again, another meaningful choice... it's not a meaningless restriction, it greatly adds to the depth of the game and alleviates a lot of the issues that sc2 has like deathballing and 1aing, as well as deeper balance issues like the design of units which would require a systems change to be addressed..
|
On August 16 2016 03:52 Endymion wrote:
allowing people to really flourish and do what they want in a way that sc2 and other modern rts can't match.
I was just a noob/casual, but I kinda disagree with that one.
I think that being able to put as much unit as you want into one key gives more freedom.
I tried broodwar, and it's a bit weird when you are making a zillion speedlings to not be able to take everything, and the way you have to make so many groups and all make it really hard and I felt a bit frustrated by that restriction.
starcraft II was aimed to a real big audience.
The "best" limit I can see, which still feel "old" and not that great, would be to limit your selection to all the unit you see on your screen or very close to that same group.
It requires skill to manage every units yes, but as someone who just want some "fun" it is really "absurd" to not be able to solect your whole army, if I make a box to take them all, If I crtl+click I want all those units.
In starcraft II you still need some skills (mostly mechanics you have to work on), to efficiently control your whole army and production.
You can build 35 marines at once, but try adding medivacs and tanks to the mix, same hotkey or not he takes a bit of practice.
And taking your high templars with your stalkers/zealot might not be such a good idea approaching the fight (depending a lots on the player of course).
Overall (especially now that we have been crossing that line) it seems out-dated and not "natural" to put a limit on how much you can control at once.
I don't really have examples of sports/games that have those kind of restrictions.
I still agree with you that skill-wised, e-sport wise, entertainment wise it can be a bit dissapointing,
I guess that post was more about the "new" version of broodwar maybe? and for this case I think it would be better to keep the initial limits.
|
Something that you didn't mention, but is an annoying factor of randomness in BW 12 unit select, is that using the box over a large group of units, as well as control clicking, seemingly randomly picks units instead of doing it from proximity to either the start of the box or the unit that was ctrl clicked.. i made a thread about it a while ago but i don't think that anyone knows the logic that decides which units are selected.
As far as being able to only select units on screen goes, do you mean that you could like select all units then add them to a control group, then do the same for another screen such that you had 2 control groups of units? i still think it would take away from the finesse of the game, but it's an interesting discussion to have. it might hurt zerg a lot with multiple rallies though
What i meant by giving people freedom and allowing them to do what they really want is when you're playing SC2, because the game is so simple to play, you need to play both a macro and micro style or you'll get fucked up (unless you're sub masters or something, then you start to see mechanics impede people and see different kinds of players). People say that SC2 is too anti casual, but the casuals get the best games of sc2 because they get to actually decide to be a macro or a micro player at the end of the day.. In BW, only the very best koreans have to actually play both sides of the coin consistently to win, and even then you still see differences between the best players of a race in playstyle..
like, say in sc2 you need 100 macro apm and 100 micro apm to play perfectly.. if you're in diamond and you have 150 apm, you get the choice of whether you want 100 macro 50 micro, 75/75, or 50/100, which meaningfully changes the way you approach the game... however, if you have 400 apm, you allocate 100/100 and so does your opponent, and all games end up the same... in BW, lets say you need 300micro apm/300macro apm to play late game zvt perfectly... if you're a foreigner with 400 apm, you still get that meaningful choice of choosing between micro and macro instead of being forced into one playstyle... if you're July and you have 600 apm, you run into the same issue as the decent sc2 player though..
obviously APM != EAPM, but do you see the freedom that i'm trying to explain?? im kinda using apm as a proxy for "attention," but it adds a distinctly human aspect into starcraft which makes it such an amazing game, and it's what the koreans refer to imo whenever they say that "star sense" is missing from SC2 when they complain about it.
the speed/attention argument is very commonly used in fighting games too, from what i have seen, between slower games like streetfighter vs faster games like guilty gear, although i just play those for fun so grain of salt
|
I was indeed refering to that possibility for control group. You start playing the game and then you can't tell a "random" group of unit where to go because they are not all gonna fit in the group,
Of course if you are careful you don't end up in this situation, and with all units you still need to prepare a bit.
But it would be really hard to put some limits and then somehow you select 20 marines, 5 are leftovers...
And yes on broodwar it was even worse as it felt that sometimes one unit was trying to "fit in every group" while another one seemingly "refused", unless you are really specific.(was just a feeling of course, need to control your army before).
I completely get what you are saying with the apm allocation and choice.
I don't know if I "like" it though, from a competitive and deeper point of view it is really interesting, it can really add something.
But from my casual/fun point of view, it just seems unecessary and it's kinda hard to explain to someone "well don't control your units right now, just make some more", it is a failrly good advice to give to beginners, you a move your roaches and don't micro them, you don't really need to micro and I don't remember who said it but "if you don't know how to micro, it's better not to try anything". (at some point you still need to look at your army because your amove gonna create a tunnel, 3 of your units dying at a time etc...).
Maybe that was the debate all-along, or a debate for another thread.
What is a reasonable limit.
What is part of strategy.
What are things that were strategy, but mainly because you couldn't do any better in the past, do we keep that?
I'm kinda thinking about sports and how you got physical aspects that lead to strategy (if you give everything for some stupid actions, later on when there is a decisive action you are gonna be burn out...etc), but starcraft is a game afterall so do they want to implement things like that, or had rather get rid of everything?
(I think we have got to that point, let's OP get some answers to his actual subject)
|
One thing that bothers me in Brood War is the way that control groups are centered. In Warcraft 3 to double-tap on the hotkey will center the camera on the largest cluster of units, it's fairly predictable and mostly fails when you add a significant number of reinforcements to your group because it centers on the cluster which is not currently in combat. Brood War handles this differently and centers the camera on the average location of the units often landing you in no man's land far from any center of interest.
Warcraft 3 improved upon the selection too by always selecting new units that had not been selected previously. If you had an army of more than twelve units you could repeatedly select+command and it would happen efficiently.
I heard some rumors about a Brood War remake authored by Blizzard and I hope they will address these two issues. I suppose it's very difficult for Blizzard to get this right, after all a fully "improved" version of Brood War is almost indistinguishable from Wings of Liberty bar some bad unit additions in the latter. Blizzard has to create a new version of Brood War that preserves continuity with the old game and that compels the old player base to switch over.
And I would love that, it is nice to have modern conveniences with classic gameplay.
--
By the way, one lens with which to view these interface considerations is to ask if it would significantly change the gameplay. And if the gameplay is changed, is that an edge case which serves only to annoy people?
I think that if you look at it like this it becomes obvious that the selection limit should remain, but that some frustrating cases have to be eliminated. Personally I also think that grouping zerglings is one such annoyance, which is part of the motivation for this blog. The pathfinding should remain as well, but maybe the incredible stupidity some units display where they get wildly off course should be investigated. Dragoons moving through ramps and bridges and so on.
I think you can remove many frustrations while leaving the gameplay and balance largely intact, enough to preserve continuity. Think of DotA vs Dota 2.
I would love modern matchmaking, wide screen resolution, lightly updated texture quality and no more issues with modern OS.
|
On August 16 2016 21:43 Grumbels wrote:
I think you can remove many frustrations while leaving the gameplay and balance largely intact, enough to preserve continuity. Think of DotA vs Dota 2.
Mechanics are not that important in dota whereas it's a core skill and game winning factor in BW and a big part of the balance.
|
I also don't think that more modern interfaces are necessarily superior. My father still prefers LP's over every other medium, and I think that when the gramophone was invented there was some muttering about losing the live dimension of music, discouraging music study, taming music to become a product for mindless entertainment, lackluster sound quality and so on. And one would be remiss to not mention that virtually all forms of music have stagnated in the past three decades, that popular movies have become commercialized to the point of suffocation, and that there still is a scope and creativity to many of the games of the early video game era that is lacking in today's blockbuster titles.
The modern world is not always superior and to me it is perfectly possible that Brood War managed to hit on a perfect balance for convenience and expressiveness for their interface, but that the industry thought they could appeal to a larger audience with a different interface and therefore compromised. The issue here is not necessarily the fact that the industry is moving on, after all they have their various interests to pursue, the issue is that multiplayer games have to be a living tradition and that the process of modernization interferes with that.
The problem becomes clear in the analogy with music: I don't mind if modern music is not to my taste because there is a wealth of classic music from previous decades, nevertheless it used to be quite difficult to access the music of many older bands. I don't mind that most modern books and modern poetry is not to my liking, because virtually all the classic writers are freely available on the internet. But when I was younger I found it very difficult to find even one single person of my age that enjoyed even such classic bands as the Rolling Stones or that had heard of Chopin. And outside of a study in literature it becomes more difficult to discuss one's love for anything other than Game of Thrones.
Fortunately there is the internet where like-minded people can gather. It is not that some form of entertainment dies out or is replaced by superior alternatives, it just moves out of the mainstream but there is enough opportunity to continue enjoying it.
You can see the point: if I want to read the bible (literally a book from 2500 years ago) I can easily access it in modern translations everywhere, but if I want to play a video game from 15 years ago I have to jump through absurd hoops, because Blizzard has copyright and won't allow people to improve their game for them. So that means no improved graphics, optimized interface, compliance with modern OS standards, modern matchmaking etc. These are serious detriments to playing Brood War and this is compounded because enjoying Brood War is an interactive process, dependent on other people's enthusiasm.
Maybe I can watch an old movie and not care that no one else watches it, and I don't even require others to discuss it with because there will be some stray reviews on the internet that can serve as food for thought. But since Brood War demands that it's a living tradition it's very damaging to the scene that the game is showing such strong signs of age.
|
On August 16 2016 21:55 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 21:43 Grumbels wrote:
I think you can remove many frustrations while leaving the gameplay and balance largely intact, enough to preserve continuity. Think of DotA vs Dota 2.
Mechanics are not that important in dota whereas it's a core skill and game winning factor in BW and a big part of the balance.
That is true, but it just means you have to be more careful. One's skill in Brood War transferred reasonably well to Starcraft 2, yet SC2 was virtually a blank slate with a deliberately radically different interface.
If you take the example that Endymion mentioned of selection priority, would changing this really affect gameplay and balance? And if it did, wouldn't it affect every race equally while leaving the structure of the gameplay completely intact?
If you added widescreen support, then the gameplay would change because you can see more units and would have a better overview of a battle etc. but wouldn't these same factors still apply? i.e. the gameplay remains structurally the same and every race is affected equally.
|
gurderoy, i'm glad that you saw my point of view regarding the allocation of APM, imo it's one of the things that makes starcraft such a special game but people often overlook it.. Like, if you took how you play the game and low a similarly skilled player plays the game, you would probably make dramatically different apm/attention allocation just because you have different outlooks on the game. that's what i love about SC, although once you feel like you hit the limit it feels like a huge grind (i assume that the very best BW players probably feel this way about hitting the top of BW as well). if you remember when idra made his comment about being mad that "players shouldnt be able to beat him because he was training in korea for BW previously," everyone wrote him off for being an arrogant prick but imo he wasn't being arrogant or a prick at all, he was underlining one of the core issues of SC2: the playing field was leveled when it really didn't have to be.. from a casual perspective it looks good at first because you have a better chance against good players, but when you get to eventually being a good player the game becomes less rewarding because everyone is the same, there's very little skill stratification as exemplified by the lack of a true SC2 bonjwa.
So all of these issues are why i see a big issue people dismissing BW's mechanics as archaic, because i love playing really fun and rewarding RTS! not that anyone here is doing that, just saying!
Grumbels, the problem with changing literally anything is that you risk splitting the player base.. It's unknown whether the koreans would go for changes that you're describing, even if it was as seemingly simple and omni applying as the selection priority logic fix.. It could be viewed to subtly buff zerg since zerg would be using it more than the other races since they have more units and run into the issue more. While the discussion is good, blizzard did a lot of damage to its reputation with sc2 and idk if both the kr scene as well as the foreign bw scene would embrace changes coming from them.. it would be much better if they just gave korea the source code imo, then we could make some actual changes that the community as a whole would agree upon, or at least value given the changes' source.
|
On August 17 2016 03:25 Endymion wrote:
Grumbels, the problem with changing literally anything is that you risk splitting the player base.. It's unknown whether the koreans would go for changes that you're describing, even if it was as seemingly simple and omni applying as the selection priority logic fix.. It could be viewed to subtly buff zerg since zerg would be using it more than the other races since they have more units and run into the issue more. While the discussion is good, blizzard did a lot of damage to its reputation with sc2 and idk if both the kr scene as well as the foreign bw scene would embrace changes coming from them.. it would be much better if they just gave korea the source code imo, then we could make some actual changes that the community as a whole would agree upon, or at least value given the changes' source.
Well, I'm not really serious about my MBS idea of course, it's more of a thought experiment. But I think the selection logic and the control group centering as well as widescreen would be nice. My brother didn't use to play Dota 2 for a long time because he couldn't get used to the graphics, because the heroes had slightly different visuals and names, because some content was missing etc. There will always be some split in the community, I don't think that's a problem, especially as a HD version offers to bring in a new audience. The main thing is that the Koreans need to view the remake as legitimate, and that the choice between the two games is more or less interchangeable. I don't think there will be such a heavy resistance to limited quality of life improvements.
--
Regarding the topic of mechanics, I always find the general distaste for mechanics a bit disappointing. It seems that some people want to play a glorified card game without any mechanics and with random outcomes. The true strength of Brood War really does lie in the apm requirements and the like, much like how the true joy in playing piano is how you can express yourself by putting your whole self in a performance. When I started playing Starcraft 2 and discovered that frequently I literally couldn't do anything useful in between some macro task I immediately felt annoyed at the pacing, much like how many musicians find it boring to play very easy songs without any scope for virtuosity.
Of course there needs to be a balance in difficulty, but when you eliminate mechanics altogether you are cutting out the heart of the game.
|
i agree, and like many of TL people i played BW before SC2 so i guess i was never spoiled with unlimited unit select/MBS so i can't really speak to how difficult the transition from SC2 => BW would be from a completely new player's perspective.. i'm assuming they would just say that the game is old and outdated because of the UI since i have heard that said by many popular gaming personalities (TB comes to mind). I don't know how to convey the idea of attention scarcity and how it positively impacts the game to potential players in fewer words than i have above, but that misunderstanding (along with bw's aging graphics) are the biggest things holding it back from a complete resurgence with competitive and casual players alike. SC2 was initially successful because it was touted that it solved the archaic mechanics of BW while updating the graphics, as well as being a genuinely good and fun game in WoL, but since then development around inferior mechanics (alongside the much discussed weaker economic systems in place) has crippled the game completely..
i just hope that HD BW addresses these issues with the respect that the base game deserves, because if it does nothing will stop it :D
|
On August 17 2016 05:22 Endymion wrote:
i agree, and like many of TL people i played BW before SC2 so i guess i was never spoiled with unlimited unit select/MBS so i can't really speak to how difficult the transition from SC2 => BW would be from a completely new player's perspective.. i'm assuming they would just say that the game is old and outdated because of the UI since i have heard that said by many popular gaming personalities (TB comes to mind). I don't know how to convey the idea of attention scarcity and how it positively impacts the game to potential players in fewer words than i have above, but that misunderstanding (along with bw's aging graphics) are the biggest things holding it back from a complete resurgence with competitive and casual players alike. SC2 was initially successful because it was touted that it solved the archaic mechanics of BW while updating the graphics, as well as being a genuinely good and fun game in WoL, but since then development around inferior mechanics (alongside the much discussed weaker economic systems in place) has crippled the game completely..
i just hope that HD BW addresses these issues with the respect that the base game deserves, because if it does nothing will stop it :D
I didn't seriously play BW until late 2008, but I had played the campaign when I was very young. Honestly my personal interest in BW was partly in "preparing" for SC2, because I was excited for the sequel to Warcraft 3 and had heard good things about BW. I will say that my friend (WC3 practice partner), who I had convinced to practice BW with me almost immediately gave up citing issues with mechanics and that another friend that I played a few practice games against also stopped because I would always have twice his supply because I was so focused on improving my apm.
You also hear testimony from professional players that say they had a lot of difficulty returning to BW after a long break and that it was almost like they had to relearn the game. I recall this random showmatch of IdrA vs InControl in BW like in 2011 and it was comical how bad they were, probably any of the top foreigners at the time would have crushed them easily.
I think BW really is too difficult mechanically, but for me it's within reasonable bounds, nothing I couldn't overcome with some practice. I think some of the quality of life issues compound the problem and create an impression of a broken interface. As games become less challenging to control it is going to be harder to get used to "archaic" interface demands. I played an RTS game from the late 90's the other day and I couldn't get used to the fact that the left-right mouse buttons were kinda reverted from the Blizzard model, it's really annoying even if it doesn't reflect on the quality of the game at all.
To continue the analogy of piano playing, the most important thing is to find pieces that reflect your current playing strength. I think that because in Starcraft 2 everything is so standardized (same maps, same meta, same speed) there isn't the sense of playing according to your skill level. The pacing isn't completely set by your opponent, there is a lot of innate speed that exists within the game because it is so easy to create a big army that will be hugely effective with only attack-moving. I think that Brood War, although more difficult, is in many ways more tolerable for weaker players because the pacing is more dependent on the skill of your opponent. Actually, many of the fundamentals of BW (engine, pathfinding, interface) work very well to this effect.
|
On August 16 2016 03:52 Endymion wrote:
i still believe that one of the most damning things about SC2 and it's development from day 1 was the removal of limited unit selection and MBS...
I totally agree. For some time I have no doubt that MBS should not exist in a competitive RTS and I think that there should not be an unlimited selection of units.
SC2 is a disaster, it has been seven years since it arrived and there is nothing more to see its current state, a totally unbalanced game that still receives patches to try to "fix" it and that since the first day is a stressful game that penalizes too much the failures, well now it is even worse than in the times of Wol and Hots; besides it is not a fun game to play or as a show, the armies disappear in a few seconds, the fightings ends in two seconds, it is unfortunate.
I did not always have this opinion but nowadays I think SC2 is a huge fraud that has lived through the marketing of Blizzard and the lack of alternatives in the RTS games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
