Wtf? That really is artificial. They're right in opposing it. Dodging lurker spines is cool. Force-firing is pretty retarded though. You know why other RTS fail compared to SC? Because when Blizzard made SC they weren't expecting people to micro for shit. So they just made the best game they could and it turned out to own hard. When you're making a game with the intent to force a certain kind of play you get ugly mal-formed fetuses like WC3.

[X]Ken_D

United States4650 Posts

August 30 2008 15:20 GMT

Many RTS move away from the micro AND macro aspect. So now what's left is an RTS will little units to control with hardly any control. Almost everything in BW made a difference and could be controlled, right down to the workers.

I don't understand fully how powerful it was in Generals, but it doesn't seem too different from BW. Pros can break normal people with just micro alone.

HypnoticPoo

Singapore291 Posts

August 30 2008 15:32 GMT

Yes, thats the problem with RTS these days, 1 group of people love micro/macro in their RTS, 1 group just want to mass units and blow stuff up.

Tropics

United Kingdom1132 Posts

August 30 2008 15:36 GMT

oh, im retarded, i read that completely wrong

that IS fucking awful and as hippo said is entirely artificial

i thought he simply meant adding weakspots to the back and sides of a unit like in company of heroes. im sure that was a neat trick in generals, but purely because it was by accident. If EA had actually cared about the game at all im sure it would've been patched out though.

SirNeb

United States243 Posts

August 30 2008 16:05 GMT

interesting stuff. The balance between micro and macro is an interesting topic.

XCetron

5226 Posts

August 30 2008 16:35 GMT

#10

I dont think it would hurt to add that, as long as it doesnt force the players to do it. Sure the player that micros should get an advantage, but not one where its a sure win strategy.

naventus

United States1338 Posts

August 30 2008 19:26 GMT

#11

What's wrong with it being artificial?

SC is a great game despite many "artificial" things. Like SBS vs MBS. Like magic boxes (which is a "feature/glitch" of the engine).

Didn't Blizzard "force" us to play a certain why by implementing SBS? Yes.
Didn't Blizzard "force" us to play a certain why by implementing MBS? Yes.

If that glitch adds depth and balances macro/micro in a game, it should be added.

Tropics

United Kingdom1132 Posts

August 30 2008 19:59 GMT

#12

Glitches aren't artificial. If it was intentional, it would be artificial. But it's not. Being able to stack air units to do fancy tricks compared to targetting your own unit sitting next to theirs to do double damage... they're just so many worlds apart. Not even remotely close. One is a break in the engine that allows fancy tricks and makes complete sense. The other is a break in the engine that any competent developer would patch out days after it's discovery. Can you imagine if they added something like that to Starcraft II? The sheer backlash from fans would probably break the internet

Blizzard didn't force us to play a certain way by implementing SBS. What the hell? I can't even wrap my brain around this, it's so ridiculous. If SC had MBS it would still most definitely be a macro game. A technical limitation is in no way artificial. If SC2 had SBS and no smartcasting or anything, that would be artificial, and it's probably the main reason those things are in the game.

There are plenty of ways to shift the balance of micro and macro and adding in something utterly absurd like the glitch mentioned above is artificial and shows nothing but sheer incompetence on the part of the developer - If you want a more micro oriented game you make it so control pays off in a noticable way that doesn't involve adding in an utterly absurd glitch. Let's for example take marine micro versus rines. What sounds better? You spread out units so they don't take as much splash damage, or... for no reason, from both a logical point of view and a game-world point of view a unit takes double damage from having friendly fire going off not on it, but next to it. That is the very definition of artifical. It obviously wasn't artifical in CCG because it was a real glitch, but if it was actually added into a game it damn well would be

naventus

United States1338 Posts

August 30 2008 20:19 GMT

#13

On August 31 2008 04:59 Tropics wrote:
Glitches aren't artificial. If it was intentional, it would be artificial. But it's not. Being able to stack air units to do fancy tricks compared to targetting your own unit sitting next to theirs to do double damage... they're just so many worlds apart. Not even remotely close. One is a break in the engine that allows fancy tricks and makes complete sense. The other is a break in the engine that any competent developer would patch out days after it's discovery. Can you imagine if they added something like that to Starcraft II? The sheer backlash from fans would probably break the internet

Are you trolling me? They said themselves they will be breaking the SC2 engine to allow stacking again in SC2. Isn't that artificial?

Blizzard didn't force us to play a certain way by implementing SBS. What the hell? I can't even wrap my brain around this, it's so ridiculous. If SC had MBS it would still most definitely be a macro game. A technical limitation is in no way artificial. If SC2 had SBS and no smartcasting or anything, that would be artificial, and it's probably the main reason those things are in the game.

Here's something to wrap your brain around: my point is that EVERYTHING is artificial. You are playing a fucking game, which is a piece of software, which is made by humans so we can alter it in whatever way we like. In something that is innately artificial, why don't we just seek to make the most interesting game rather than set up fake/artificial guidelines on what we can't do.

There are plenty of ways to shift the balance of micro and macro and adding in something utterly absurd like the glitch mentioned above is artificial and shows nothing but sheer incompetence on the part of the developer - If you want a more micro oriented game you make it so control pays off in a noticable way that doesn't involve adding in an utterly absurd glitch. Let's for example take marine micro versus rines. What sounds better? You spread out units so they don't take as much splash damage, or... for no reason, from both a logical point of view and a game-world point of view a unit takes double damage from having friendly fire going off not on it, but next to it. That is the very definition of artifical. It obviously wasn't artifical in CCG because it was a real glitch, but if it was actually added into a game it damn well would be

Great. So what about the macro part of the game? Blizzard added plenty of different micro systems into WC3. Clearly that wasn't the magic to SC.

My point is that Blizzard should do whatever is necessary to make a great game, even if it goes against the "innovations" that have come into modern games. I'd rather have a game that some people hate, but lasts 10 years, than a game that everyone likes, but is dead in the water in 4 (WC3).

Mastermind

Canada7096 Posts

August 30 2008 20:55 GMT

#14

Having a game that is 80% micro and 20% macro sounds terrible

Tropics

United Kingdom1132 Posts

August 30 2008 21:21 GMT

#15

Are you trolling me? They said themselves they will be breaking the SC2 engine to allow stacking again in SC2. Isn't that artificial?

Joke response? I'm trolling you because I disagree? how sheltered are you? The entire point of my post was that there are limits on how far you can go with glitches.

wat

it's called context. meanings change under context. OBVIOUSLY artificial in the context of a videogame means it's limited or added in some way that isn't completely natural. i.e artificial difficulty like rubberband ai in racing games or something. surely i don't have to spell out that obviously all videogames are artificial and etc.

There ARE limits on how far you can go with things, or you end up with absurdities like that CCG glitch. Just read the opening post of that thread and you can see how incredibly game altering something like that is. It completely flipped that game from slightly macro based to extremely micro based. Can you imagine someone found something like that in Starcraft? The discovery of magic boxes and muta micro in SC was a pretty big change but it didn't completely rock the dynamic of play and entirely change how every single game was played. using a mechanism like the ccg glitch instead of actual creativity and game design is basically admitting you have no actual talent as a developer and have to rely on silly artificial glitches to make your game how you want it to be. There's a big difference between intentional and accidental. I'm trying to find a way to word this better, but the best I can come up with is using massively game altering glitches that don't make any logical sense to make your game how you want it to be is different from using small glitches like stacking air units to change specific parts of the game. More to the point, making air units stack in sc2 is not something I would see as a glitch, merely a development choice. Modifying the engine so you have to use a specific technique for it doesn't make it any less real to me, either.

Something like the CCG glitch destroys accessability too, and really the main problem with is it makes no sense. It should feel like it's there for a reason. something completely random like attacking your own unit next to an enemy unit for double damage just makes no sense. Stacking mutalisks so they all fire at once makes perfect sense to me

I guess really what I want to say is it all comes down to scale, logic and where you choose to draw the line on what glitches are good and what are bad.

Great. So what about the macro part of the game? Blizzard added plenty of different micro systems into WC3. Clearly that wasn't the magic to SC.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but I'll say part of the magic of SC is it wasn't pidgeon holed by it's developer. It was just a fun game left to grow on its own and over the 10 years it's been out it's evolved from micro oriented to crazy macro oriented. Every single aspect of Starcraft is comprised of nothing but luck.

kpcrew

Korea (South)1071 Posts

August 30 2008 22:27 GMT

#16

if i thought other rts were better than sc, i wouldnt be here