EPTThe changes you want to implement will make the game not fun.
If starcraft 2 only changed the interface.... - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
The changes you want to implement will make the game not fun. | ||
|
TreY
United States997 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 20 2005 17:59 Excalibur_Z wrote: There is a reason stuff like this gets shot down. That is because War3 used this philosophy and that game frankly sucks. Taking out the "mundane tedious boring" stuff sounds like a great idea because it will give players more time to micro, but it's one of those things that sounds good on paper until you try it out. You are completely and totally wrong, Warcraft 3's interface is the best thing about it. The things that make it bad (compared to SC) are things like the heroes, creeps and small armies, not the interface. Also, I would expect most interface improvements to SC to only make the game more interesting at every level, since more time can be spent doing interesting stuff, carrying out tactics, etc, rather than doing mundane crap like sending workers to mine. Just because most of you win most of your games by doing simple stuff faster than your opponent doesn't mean that improving the interface would make the game less interesting; quite the opposite. edit: having to do tons of clicks to carry out mundane tasks is *not* what makes SC a great game, what makes it great is the mechanics, variety and balance. So what if some current good players would start to not be so good if the interface was improved? Smarter and hence more interesting players would rise to the top instead. We might even see an increase in the rate of strategic innovation, units that are currently considered too fiddly such as queens might be used more, etc. edit2: a new version of SC with better graphics and interface could also cause a big resurgence of interest in the multiplayer game, which would be great for the community even if most returning players would be no challenge for those who have been playing continously since 1998. edit3: and if changing the interface did make some parts of the game "too easy" in some sense, then it would be better to adjust the gameplay mechanics to be even more subtle and interesting than they are now, rather than to just arbitarily make the interface harder to use and call it skill. I think many of you are far too resistant to change. Chess didn't orginally have the "Queen" piece, but I don't think anyone is arguing that adding it didn't make the game more interesting. And for that matter, almost everyone thinks that BW made SC better, and that was quite a major change compared to just improving the interface. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 07:29 Ghin wrote: Tal, I will say it very simply. The changes you want to implement will make the game not fun. Would reducing the interface to Dune 2 levels make the game more fun? If not, why do you assume that the current interface is at the "perfect" level of ease/difficulty already? | ||
|
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
Novice mode: Most of the things is automaticly like whatevery he said Expert mode: Keep the multitasking. Expert mode is used in tournament, novice is not accepted. Just an idea. | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
edit: having to do tons of clicks to carry out mundane tasks is *not* what makes SC a great game, what makes it great is the mechanics, variety and balance. omg, first Tal, now someone else -_-; Tal is asking to take away macro. Entirely (having units queued by themselves). If you take away macro, you are taking away half of the game and making this game even WORSE than WC3, since it'll be WAY TOO DAMN EASY. Stop trying to perfect a game that's nearly perfect with retarded ideas. There is a reason why BW is still beating WC3 with a 2:1 ratio in terms of popularity (according to WCG polls). I'm not sure how to explain to you that you're not making interface changes, you're changing the entire game. You wouldn't add *strategy*, since strategy is pretty much at it's peak. You would just take away from the game. And macroing isn't boring. It's what seperates good players from Tal-players. | ||
|
pooper-scooper
United States3108 Posts
| ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1013 Posts
''Macroing isn't boring''- do you really actually enjoy spamming buttons which you shouldn't need to spam? Also you don't understand me properly. I don't want to take away macro, I just want to make it easier. Choosing what units to build, what amounts to build, what production facilities to get and when and where to expand would all remain. Everything that required thought would remain. Half of the game is not being taken away This too damn easy argument is bollocks. Many many games have easy 'interfaces', (chess, Counterstrike, football  ) but that doesn't detract AT ALL from the strategy and skill. It adds to it. The only ''skill' that is being taken away is the ability to hammer your keyboard fast, which me (and others) hate being such a big part of a brilliantly involving real time strategy game.Thanks for support from Gravity, you make some of the stuff I'm saying much clearer. I also thought of another thing to change in the interface: When you have multiple spellcasters selected and use a spell that does not stack (e. g d-web/storm/dark swarm/etc) only 1 spell gets cast. A lot of the time in the strategy forum people ask why Protoss players don't ever use corsairs to d-web Terran pushes. One of the main factors cited is it's too hard to micro (because of shitty interface). This would open up more tactical oppurtunites. | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
''Macroing isn't boring''- do you really actually enjoy spamming buttons which you shouldn't need to spam? Also you don't understand me properly. I don't want to take away macro, I just want to make it easier. Choosing what units to build, what amounts to build, what production facilities to get and when and where to expand would all remain. Everything that required thought would remain. Half of the game is not being taken away A way to make Macro easier would be to allow you to customize hotkeys. You realize that there would be no difference between Oov's unit production and yours? What the hell? Are you blind? I've gotten 3-4 new people to play BW, and I've been helping them, and they all tell me that "wtf, I've been playing for three months and I still can't beat you. I've mastered every other game in less than a week. BW is different. I'll keep playing BW." Support from gravity isn't helping your cause. If people would actually bother to read his post (once he said that he agreed with you I doubt anyone wasted their time on it), they'd read this: And for that matter, almost everyone thinks that BW made SC better, and that was quite a major change compared to just improving the interface. Dude, adding seven units is incomparibly small to changing the ENTIRE game. You are taking away the "boring" part, and giving everyone Oov macro. Tal doesn't play the game on a high enough level to understand the consequences of any of the changes he's talking about implementing. Good players like Twisted, Midian, Ret, who frequent this forum, haven't even bothered posting in this thread (I didn't see anyone, anyway) because they know even more than the rest of us how big a change what you're suggesting would be, and how bad a change it would be. And as for this: When you have multiple spellcasters selected and use a spell that does not stack (e. g d-web/storm/dark swarm/etc) only 1 spell gets cast. A lot of the time in the strategy forum people ask why Protoss players don't ever use corsairs to d-web Terran pushes. One of the main factors cited is it's too hard to micro (because of shitty interface). This would open up more tactical oppurtunites. No. Fuck it, I don't think you even understand what is being said to you. No one here wants a game where they can just sit the fuck back and eat their instant noodles in peace while all they have to press is two-three buttons. Let's just change the entire game: - Auto split at the beginning (Yes, very good idea Tal, let's remove the first basic element of micro that seperates players' skill-wise) - Automatic macro - Preset build orders that you can choose depending on what you scouted (OOH, STRATEGY OMGOMGM) - Automatic scouting patterns (cause damn, if you don't know the map, that's pretty damn newb isn't it) - Preset expanding (you can set a time to expand at and it'll do it all by itself!!) - Automatic CC lifting to expo - Preset wall construction (so you don't have those bad walls!!!) - Automatic units formations (cause m&m vs lurk is way too damn ahrd!!!!!! :[:[) - Automatic spellcasting (another great idea Tal! Let's take away the entire art of cloning! YES! NOW EVERYONE HAS THE EXACT SAME SKILL LEVEL AND ONE WEEK OF PLAY AND YOU'RE A PROGAMER, AND THUS PEOPLE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT GAME BECAUSE BW WILL POSE NO CHALLENGE SINCE STRATEGIES/BUILD ORDERS/COUNTERS HAVE ALL ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED). WC3 would be a better game. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
its called 'smart casting' and do you even realize that the fact that DWEB is so hard to use is part of balance? | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1013 Posts
Why in the world would one week of play make you a progamer? Even though it's obviously hyperbole, it's still bollocks. A lot of progamer skill is good strategic choices (of which there are way too many for a new player to even comprehend), and an intuition-like feel of the game, that can only be attained by playing vast amounts of games. I would guess that Boxer would still be the best with these changes implemented, due to his innovative strategies, determination and brilliant micro. The game should be about outplaying your opponent, not outplaying the interface. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1013 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2537 Posts
Because i'd master that game in 4 months, max. I'd probably be so fucking bored of micro matches i'd start playing kotor 2 or some other shit. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
[quote] There is a reason why BW is still beating WC3 with a 2:1 ratio in terms of popularity (according to WCG polls). [/QUOTE] I have no idea why people keep saying this. WC3's weaknesses have nothing to do with it's interface, which is great. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 09:18 Oxygen wrote: NOW EVERYONE HAS THE EXACT SAME SKILL LEVEL AND ONE WEEK OF PLAY AND YOU'RE A PROGAMER, AND THUS PEOPLE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT GAME BECAUSE BW WILL POSE NO CHALLENGE SINCE STRATEGIES/BUILD ORDERS/COUNTERS HAVE ALL ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED). You are a total idiot if you think you could ever beat Iloveoov or most other top progamers no matter how much the interface was improved. I think you guys are way overestimating the importance of fast clicking to making the game interesting, what makes the game good is decisions, strategy and timing, not how fast you can clone. If improving the interface would really destroy BW, that just proves that BW is really not a very good strategy game. I think it is. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 09:34 EnDeR_ wrote: Do you know why i don't like your changes? Because i'd master that game in 4 months, max. No, you wouldn't. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 09:18 Oxygen wrote: You realize that there would be no difference between Oov's unit production and yours? What the hell? Are you blind? This isn't true (macro is about more than clicking as fast as possible), but if Oov only does as well as he does because he can click on factories fast (which isn't true), then he doesn't deserve to be a progamer, let alone one of the top ones. In that case his place is being falsly held up by an outdated interface design, and not by any really interesting skill. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
Your suggestions are terrible. Sincerely, BinaryStar. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
i think you broke some fundamental laws of physics right there | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
I'll address one thing then. [QUOTE]On May 21 2005 09:35 gravity wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2005 08:27 Oxygen wrote: [quote] There is a reason why BW is still beating WC3 with a 2:1 ratio in terms of popularity (according to WCG polls). [/QUOTE] I have no idea why people keep saying this. WC3's weaknesses have nothing to do with it's interface, which is great.[/QUOTE] It's not about WC3s weakness. It's about BW's strength. There's a reason why people are still playing it. S'cause people like Tal or gravity didn't design the game. Both of you remind me of OvazioFrio. | ||
| ||
