Right this is the kind of post that gets shot down in flame by purists, so it would be nice to get responses from open minded people.
What i'm basically saying, is what if Blizzard decided to make a sequel to starcraft, but did it with some sense. So like the CS making people, they realised the basic game is SO strong and great and fun, that changing that will fuck up the game. In Starcraft's case, it's arguable that even changing the units would fuck up the game.
So they want to make our great game much better, so they can re-release it and try and get the kind of cult going in Europe/UK/USA that CS has. They'd probably mess with the graphics, but we can hope they would only make it prettier/sharper so as not to effect gameplay. Ideally, they'd mess a little with gamebalance, taking a look at the odd silly upgrade cost or ineffective unit (but lets not go into that, as it's been debated in 100000 threads).
What this is about, is the interface. As a fairly average kinda playing games type person, I have to say that SC's interface is a piece of shit. You play a game and have to deal with a truly ridiculous amount of pointless crap to enjoy it.
Some things which should be changed:
1: When you build a worker unit, it should fucking go and mine. Once your gas geyser is done, the optimum amount of workers should mosey on down and get your gas straightaway. You shouldn't have to do it yourself, because it's intensely boring. If you don't want this stuff to happen automatically, then there should be an option for it, but your average gamer DOES NOT want to spend a good portion of every game telling their probes to go and mine.
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle.
3: You should be able to do a similar thing to ensure supply generating shit is made at the optimal times. So you mark out a series of spaces for depots and pylons, and they are built in the order you marked them to coincide with them finishing a bit before you hit supply limit.
4: You should be able to select all your units at the same time. The first thing I noticed when playing was that I could only pick 12 units. This is unneccessary in the extreme. Smart players will naturually split their units into groups to let them micro better and flank well etc. But when I build 100 lings, it would be nice to send them in one instant wave without having to give myself rsi to do so.
5: When all your units are selected, you should be able to use all their individual hotkeys. I can't think of a reason not to. Oh and you should be able to customise your hotkeys.
6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
Those are the basics, but I imagine I could think of more. Oh workers should split automatically.
The overall point is that it makes the game much more fun to play. Non-pro gamers can now play very high level style games, able to concentrate on strategy and micro, without having to do boring crap for 30-70% of the game. Pro gamers, freed of distractions will be able to pull off mindblowing pieces of micro.
New players can get into the game and actually play with their friends without 3 months of getting put off by doing boring and unneccessary multi-tasking while trying to enjoy a great game.
Oh, and while this is slightly off topic, why doesn't the game just start with 6 workers? No build except 4 pool would be affected, and the amount of time saved would be astronomical over time.
Cheers for reading, if you have intelligent well-reasoned stuff to say, would be appreciated.
most of your suggestions just seem to be making the game easier to play, that makes getting really good less of an achievement and takes away some/alot of the appeal. they really dont have a positive effect on the game other than making you do less stuff at once.
On May 20 2005 17:46 HungZerg wrote: most of your suggestions just seem to be making the game easier to play, that makes getting really good less of an achievement and takes away some/alot of the appeal. they really dont have a positive effect on the game other than making you do less stuff at once.
Yeah I agree.
If Blizzard carries out all of your changes, then the game would be too simple to play. The game is interesting and fun to play because it requires both practice and intelligence. If the game is too simple, then there goes half of the game.
what the fuck. that would just fuck up this whole game. multitasking is what makes a good player. sc will be overrun by micro only noobs. we will have nothing to do for like 10 minutes, that would just bore us even more. and about the selecting all units and being able to use their individual hotkeys. yea, if u want the panel on the right to span most of the right side. Workers should be split automatically? what the fuck are you smoking. and stop using the word 'optimum'. please. anyway, all that zealot first, probe when money would screw over your timing. once again multitasking is what separates a great player from a good one i would be bored silly the first 5 minutes of the game since all the peons will go to gas/mineral automatically.
Cheersfor reading, if you have intelligent well-reasoned stuff to say, would be appreciated.
cant help u there, sorry.
PS: this better be a joke
edit: plz dont get rid of 4pool. its my only way of winning with zerg t.t oh and if any changes should be made in sc, it should be the storm damage.
On May 20 2005 17:53 1hp wrote: what the fuck. that would just fuck up this whole game. multitasking is what makes a good player. sc will be overrun by micro only noobs. we will have nothing to do for like 10 minutes, that would just bore us even more. and about the selecting all units and being able to use their individual hotkeys. yea, if u want the panel on the right to span most of the right side. Workers should be split automatically? what the fuck are you smoking. and stop using the word 'optimum'. please. anyway, all that zealot first, probe when money would screw over your timing. once again multitasking is what separates a great player from a good one i would be bored silly the first 5 minutes of the game since all the peons will go to gas/mineral automatically.
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. To the average player, the kind of player that has trouble keeping up with simultaneous micro and macro, it's a good thing. Macro isn't much of a problem, the economy runs itself, and all your time can be spent microing. If you plan to never graduate beyond the newbie level, that's fine. But when you start taking the game more seriously and begin playing on a competitive level, you'll find that most games play out the same way, and each high level player is exactly as micro-skilled as the next. It was perhaps a little extreme in War3's case because units had so much life and did so little damage, but the same would happen for Starcraft.
It has nothing to do with being a purist, really. If anything I'd say that you're just being lazy. Now for your specific points:
1) If there were an option to turn off automatic mining, nobody would ever use it because it is such a huge advantage when your economy is automated. Following this, see my first point.
2) I have no idea how this would work. Where would you specify the priorities? There are also so many different levels of priority it would just be confusing and lame.
3) What if you want to reach a supply limit then attack and drop your supply via unit death as opposed to building more depots? What if you want to save your money for something else? Where would you turn off this option?
4) No this is a horrible idea. The 12-unit selection limit was built into the game for a reason - not only to make it easy to select unit portraits, but for balance reasons too. If you have 100 lings and you are able to send them all somewhere in one large group, that is an enormous balance problem because you have a massive advantage over other races whose armies are smaller, and lings are very cost-effective so the developers took this into account when deciding on a selection limit too.
5) This actually wouldn't be too bad. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
6) I would like this too. I played an 8-player FFA the other day on Expedition and I had no idea where I was going, even after studying the map preview in the game lobby. Part of the problem there is because none of the start locations are labeled, but it would be nice to have the fog of war like War3's. That's one thing that's really good about that game.
i have never complained on anyone who shared their thoughts about what would like to see changed in SC2 but this time it just goes beyond my borders and NO: i'm not a purist!!
all of your suggestions just want to make the game much more easy to play. well, imo this is not the case. having some level of difficulty IS a thing that makes this game lovable because no matter how long you're playing it there are always always tons of levels to advance. with your suggestions people would only have to keep in mind just a small portion of what there is to consider now, which either you want to accpet it or not : IT' S NOT FUN!
fun is getting better and better and owning more people by the day with the skills you have managed to acquire or your supreme ideas you put into your game. making it x1000 easier as you want is just pointless and would make the game appeal to so many more people... and then dump it forever!!
sc requires dedication and lots of effort to be put in. take them away and you have.... just another rts
so.... ur basically saying.... "this game is too hard, make it simplier" ????
lol -.- hmmm here's another good idea, y don't u just have the computer play each other and u watch and bet on who wins?! very simple
btw, what u think as 'boring crap' is not so boring to others... nice idea of a post, but i have to say that ur just putting out ideas to help "YOU" more than other ppl...
most of ur ideas are in war crap 3 and that game sucks , i only agree with number 4 because hotkeying 129012812 groups of lings is a bitch when you need to hotkey your hatches and shit too. i can never hotkey that many groups cause they would overlap my hatch hotkeys.
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: Oh and you should be able to customise your hotkeys.
6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
These 2 things I sort of agree with (and I think there's already a program out that helps with the hotkey thing). As for everything else, I agree with HungZerg.
if you want only micro game = W3FT if you want macro/micro/multitasking/strategy = SCBW but I think they can change the graphics a bit and made a 800x600+ version
there are numerous things built in no starcraft which serve to real purpose other than to add an unnecessary difficulty level to fill in the gap for what would have otherwise been the discovery of an empty game. Starcraft has one of the worst configuarations for playability i have ever witnessed in any game on any platform. Half the attention to the design seems to implicate an intentional desire to do this, such as with the ill use of a keybaord to manage this type of game, and non-customizable keys. Now what players say is an attempt to newbify the game, i see as an attempt to focus more time and thought into actual strategy. If you break down even the best replays out there, the ones people proclaim for their brilliant tactical decisions, it really becomes something painfully simple that any one of us could have come up with. Its just that we dont get to because we're too busy battling the games internal design built against us. "oooh, he clones arbiters and does a drop" i mean thats a one two manuever. But you get props doing it when everything has to be micro managed. Using a simplified interface would actually put players at the helm of a true military strategist, a general, and not just a grunt where you have to be told everything to do.
However people seem to have more fun with reflexes and coordination than actual thought process these days, most games being instinct driven, and starcraft is no different. And i will admit there is some fun to be had in mastering a fluttering mouse and wrist strain reaching accross the entire keyboard back and forth. Hell, maybe gamers arent even intelligent enough to come up with truely awe inspiring strats that would make the navy seals proud, so we will settle with marine micro and mutalisk control.
I have an idea. Bring up all suggestions you honestly think are good, we discuss them and then we send them to Blizzard. Some really creative and innovative suggestions migth make them read the whole thing and think over it, and if were lucky some things will get into the game. Here is some things I personally would make SCII a *really* good game. Some are minor changes, some are major changes. Discuss!
1) Better graphics. Yeah it's going to have to be in 3rd but with a fixed viewpoint that doesn't matter at all. 1b) Observer mode with completly free camera controll. (Imagine how wicked the battles would be when you can zoom down rigth down to the marine in Ground Controll style. 1c) Free camera mode in replays as well.
2) Better interface. 2b) Find idle worker command (why not?) 2c) Larger possible groups. 2e) Toggle for HP/Shields/Mana for all units when selected, both in portrait and in game. (Would help you find the templar with mana left for a storm that much easier) 2f) Mode to let individiual units selected shine up for easier identification on the battlefield when selected as portrait. (You click injured zeal and get some kind of signal so you instantly know which one is injured) 2g) Que construction for workers, especially protoss. (So yeah, queing a probe to build 5 pylons late game makes the game easier but... 2h) Units autmatically move out of the way when you put down a structure. (Finally being able to plcae sunkens in mineral line. YES!)
3)Gameplay 3a) Unit AI's fixed. (Gols/reavers/goons) 3b) Better pathfinding. 3c) Better maps from start (Just take all the promaps over the ages and implent them, and then make some new ones. 3d) New terrain with tactical uses. (Such as shallow water making units move slower in it, Grass enabling small units to autmatically hide in it when standing still and such things.) 3e) Matchup system a la WCIII so you can allways play people of the same skill. 3f) Built in voice chat system. 3g) Sign system for setting up units in formations. (Basically press down one mouse button or two and then "draw" a pattern and your units will line up like that. They won't keep it but they will initally line up like it. Say you want to contain a ramp. Press both mouse buttons and draw a half circle and your goons will automatically form up as a half circle.)
4) Units/Races 4a) Split races, meaing every race get's split up in 3 different factions with most units being very similar but still having a few wholy individual units and some special abilities for most units. So you select Terran:Confederation or Protoss:Judicator cast or Zerg:Random etc. 4b) Only one new race. (Much faster to balance, factions make the game have 12 unique races anyway.
5) Editor 5a) Just vastly improved editor. Like WCIII but on crack. So you can produce any time of map including StarioCart or Starcraft: Doom. (Wich would incidently allow people to play units a la Dungeon Keeper in an UMS scenario while their ally microes, or take buildings like in Ghost or... The possibilities are endless. Put a LOT of work in the "map" editor.
The game empire earth is a good example of how an rts can function on a large scale with little micro or on a small scale with lots of micro simulataneously. And it is quite fun to have this massive aerial view of the map and just select units in hords and plan interesting feign's and baited attacks with multiple flank angles and so forth with the simple whisk of a mouse. Then you can fly in and start messin with units one by one if you so desire.
On May 20 2005 18:01 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote: all of your suggestions just want to make the game much more easy to play. well, imo this is not the case. having some level of difficulty IS a thing that makes this game lovable because no matter how long you're playing it there are always always tons of levels to advance.
That's actually a very good point, and I have a short personal story related to it. My friends and I used to play SC almost daily (LAN environment) back when we were in high school. In my junior year, shortly after Brood War came out, I started surfing the Battle.net forums in my free time in Keyboarding class. I learned about the balance of the game and applied it when we played. Mostly we just played against the computer in 2v2s or 3v3s. I got a little better. Then I started reading strategies and stories and learning about micro on BattleReports.com, and again I learned more and applied it when we played. Beating the computer became easier and easier as I became faster and more knowledgeable and could compensate for the shortcomings of my teammates. The two friends that I played with both had different opinions about Starcraft: one saw it the way I did, as a deep game with a lot of potential, and he began picking up my learned strategies and we taught each other to become better. The other friend simply saw Starcraft as a casual way to spend time with friends, not really taking the game seriously and struggling to beat the computer. As we continued to play, sometimes against the computer and sometimes against each other, my other friend (the casual gamer) began slipping away from Starcraft and into other games like Age of Kings and Emperor: Battle for Dune. A major contributing factor to his becoming bored with Starcraft was that my friend and I had become too good. As we became better and better, my other friend would join us for Starcraft less and less often, and eventually he came to hate the game.
I guess the moral of the story is to look at it from a different perspective. Yes, things may be tough for you because there is so much multitasking involved with the game, but if you are a casual gamer with no real drive to improve, you will lose interest in this game and find a new game to play. On the same note, the reason Starcraft is still so popular today is because multitasking is required to become good - there are so many facets to the core of the game, from differing micro, macro, strategic, tactical, and recon abilities, that many different skill levels exist. Removing some of these removes some of these skill tiers, it's true, but that also means the players who strive to become the best will find that there is no distinguishing element that makes them the best.
ya fixed view but with ability to scroll out or in too?
larger groups? mabey triple click for select all of one unit type. the more units you have selected the worse they obey the command? where 1-12 will obey what you do while more have a increasing deviation in pathfinding perhaps?
also, add that fog of war thing which has been talked about.
One of the things on my wish list is, when you have a group of zerg units selected and they're burrowed, and the other player attacks them, some of them pop out of the ground. When you try to unburrow the group, the units above ground try to re-burrow into the ground, rather than the whole group unburrowing. So unless you try to ctrl-select your burrowed units to unburrow (difficult when you have more than 1 or 2 groups burrowed in a spot), all your units get slaughtered.
Now my 2 cents, i think an interesting idea would be some sort of "dodging" or "aiming" or whatever so that when a pro gamer would focus hard on a single unit like a marine he could be able to beat 2 marine controlled by a newbie. Like lets say 1 zealot controlled by Nal_ra would easily beat 1 zealot controlled by a random newbie.
Lets say a "shield" button that you could press at right moment and it blocks. But that could only be applied to a single unit at once. so we could see pros do that would multiple units while us normal people could not do that, making the gap between pros and us even bigger.
I also like the faction idea. Basicelly this could be a little bit based on player preference.
We could have lets say 3 marine types(one for each faction).
One that cost 80 mineral, is made as fast as normal marine, 60 life, 7 damage.
That marine would be a bit weaker than the real marine but it makes it a lot easier for beginners to spend their money and theres less units to control(more cost effective), less barracks to make and so on.
A second marine type that would be for intermediate...the normal 40/6 marine that we all know.
And maybe a third "pro gamer" marine that would be faster walking and 30/6.
So basicelly the begginner trying to use the pro version of the marine will just die to lurkers.... And the pro would clearly do a lot better with the pro version of the marine(imagine the micros).
Another way would be to just make it 3 different faction to have more possible strategies but that would be pretty hard for blizz to balance.
Lets say have a faction with vultures doing less damage but more mines. So today nada feels like massing mines, he picks this faction, other day he wants to probe rush a lot he might pick the damage vulture and so on.
Just to answer tal, even thought i agree game could be fun that way, i think it is a lot more impressive to see pros do what they do with a shitty interface than with a godly interface......there be almost no diff between pros and average korean A- on pgt. At casual play level it could be nice but for serious gamers i think the current interface makes it better.
Lets say a "shield" button that you could press at right moment and it blocks. But that could only be applied to a single unit at once. so we could see pros do that would multiple units while us normal people could not do that, making the gap between pros and us even bigger.
This would have to be immensely well-balanced, but I really do like the idea.
I agree with CCK for this part:
1) Better graphics. Yeah it's going to have to be in 3rd but with a fixed viewpoint that doesn't matter at all. 1b) Observer mode with completly free camera controll. (Imagine how wicked the battles would be when you can zoom down rigth down to the marine in Ground Controll style. 1c) Free camera mode in replays as well.
2) Better interface. 2b) Find idle worker command (why not?) 2c) Larger possible groups. 2e) Toggle for HP/Shields/Mana for all units when selected, both in portrait and in game. (Would help you find the templar with mana left for a storm that much easier) 2f) Mode to let individiual units selected shine up for easier identification on the battlefield when selected as portrait. (You click injured zeal and get some kind of signal so you instantly know which one is injured) 2g) Que construction for workers, especially protoss. (So yeah, queing a probe to build 5 pylons late game makes the game easier but... 2h) Units autmatically move out of the way when you put down a structure. (Finally being able to plcae sunkens in mineral line. YES!)
Tal: no. If you had units build themselves automatically, you are basically taking away most everyone's skill, since everyone can focus on micro and multitasking becomes null. What's next, implementing build orders while you drink your coffee in peace? Go watch a movie if BW is too hard, or too "boring". That "boring" part is what seperates D+ from B+.
adding all these features in would decrease the skill gap in starcraft, therefore making skill much less impressive, and shortening the game's longevity. if things were much easier to do, people wouldn't be paid to play it.
On May 20 2005 21:11 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: adding all these features in would decrease the skill gap in starcraft, therefore making skill much less impressive, and shortening the game's longevity. if things were much easier to do, people wouldn't be paid to play it.
edit: in response to Tal's post
or someone could just becomes to mind numbingly incredibly skilled that they once again warrant pay. Imagine that level of skill for such an easy game, now that would be something to watch. Like pro-gaming pong, thats gotta be good.
Those suggestions suck because it waters everything down. In fact, it takes away everything that make starcraft the most popular RTS ever released.
It waters everything down to the point that everyone could be excellent at the game with little practice or speed. On of the reasons I love starcraft is because of my short attention span, and my constant need to my doing different things. In starcraft, no matter how fast I get, there will always be more things to do. Under your "let the game play itself" scenario, all there really is to do is micro (what game does that sound like...?). The skill level would instantly even out (and level off).
All players would have oov style macro, so instead of it being a fucking amazing accomplishment, it would be the normal thing. You must seriously suck at macro if you want it all done for you. I think that all levels macro is extremely satisfying and knowing that I will have another army ready when my current one is dead is awesome.
Starcraft is a competition on a personal level. If the point of the game was to make sure that all games between all players had perfect macro and micro, all games would be team melee. Instead, the point of the game is to try and outplay your opponent on as many levels as possible using your own skill, not an automated script.
Removing skill from the game would not be a wise thing, my friend, unless you want starcraft to join the legion of failed RPGs.
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: Right this is the kind of post that gets shot down in flame by purists, so it would be nice to get responses from open minded people.
What i'm basically saying, is what if Blizzard decided to make a sequel to starcraft, but did it with some sense. So like the CS making people, they realised the basic game is SO strong and great and fun, that changing that will fuck up the game. In Starcraft's case, it's arguable that even changing the units would fuck up the game.
So they want to make our great game much better, so they can re-release it and try and get the kind of cult going in Europe/UK/USA that CS has. They'd probably mess with the graphics, but we can hope they would only make it prettier/sharper so as not to effect gameplay. Ideally, they'd mess a little with gamebalance, taking a look at the odd silly upgrade cost or ineffective unit (but lets not go into that, as it's been debated in 100000 threads).
What this is about, is the interface. As a fairly average kinda playing games type person, I have to say that SC's interface is a piece of shit. You play a game and have to deal with a truly ridiculous amount of pointless crap to enjoy it.
Some things which should be changed:
1: When you build a worker unit, it should fucking go and mine. Once your gas geyser is done, the optimum amount of workers should mosey on down and get your gas straightaway. You shouldn't have to do it yourself, because it's intensely boring. If you don't want this stuff to happen automatically, then there should be an option for it, but your average gamer DOES NOT want to spend a good portion of every game telling their probes to go and mine.
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle.
3: You should be able to do a similar thing to ensure supply generating shit is made at the optimal times. So you mark out a series of spaces for depots and pylons, and they are built in the order you marked them to coincide with them finishing a bit before you hit supply limit.
4: You should be able to select all your units at the same time. The first thing I noticed when playing was that I could only pick 12 units. This is unneccessary in the extreme. Smart players will naturually split their units into groups to let them micro better and flank well etc. But when I build 100 lings, it would be nice to send them in one instant wave without having to give myself rsi to do so.
5: When all your units are selected, you should be able to use all their individual hotkeys. I can't think of a reason not to. Oh and you should be able to customise your hotkeys.
6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
Those are the basics, but I imagine I could think of more. Oh workers should split automatically.
The overall point is that it makes the game much more fun to play. Non-pro gamers can now play very high level style games, able to concentrate on strategy and micro, without having to do boring crap for 30-70% of the game. Pro gamers, freed of distractions will be able to pull off mindblowing pieces of micro.
New players can get into the game and actually play with their friends without 3 months of getting put off by doing boring and unneccessary multi-tasking while trying to enjoy a great game.
Oh, and while this is slightly off topic, why doesn't the game just start with 6 workers? No build except 4 pool would be affected, and the amount of time saved would be astronomical over time.
Cheers for reading, if you have intelligent well-reasoned stuff to say, would be appreciated.
To add to my above two posts (which you must read), I love how you call these simply "interface changes", when in reality they are huge and game-breaking.
"Interface changes" would be things like making the bottom panel hideable or something.
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: Right this is the kind of post that gets shot down in flame by purists, so it would be nice to get responses from open minded people.
What i'm basically saying, is what if Blizzard decided to make a sequel to starcraft, but did it with some sense. So like the CS making people, they realised the basic game is SO strong and great and fun, that changing that will fuck up the game. In Starcraft's case, it's arguable that even changing the units would fuck up the game.
So they want to make our great game much better, so they can re-release it and try and get the kind of cult going in Europe/UK/USA that CS has. They'd probably mess with the graphics, but we can hope they would only make it prettier/sharper so as not to effect gameplay. Ideally, they'd mess a little with gamebalance, taking a look at the odd silly upgrade cost or ineffective unit (but lets not go into that, as it's been debated in 100000 threads).
What this is about, is the interface. As a fairly average kinda playing games type person, I have to say that SC's interface is a piece of shit. You play a game and have to deal with a truly ridiculous amount of pointless crap to enjoy it.
Some things which should be changed:
1: When you build a worker unit, it should fucking go and mine. Once your gas geyser is done, the optimum amount of workers should mosey on down and get your gas straightaway. You shouldn't have to do it yourself, because it's intensely boring. If you don't want this stuff to happen automatically, then there should be an option for it, but your average gamer DOES NOT want to spend a good portion of every game telling their probes to go and mine.
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle.
3: You should be able to do a similar thing to ensure supply generating shit is made at the optimal times. So you mark out a series of spaces for depots and pylons, and they are built in the order you marked them to coincide with them finishing a bit before you hit supply limit.
4: You should be able to select all your units at the same time. The first thing I noticed when playing was that I could only pick 12 units. This is unneccessary in the extreme. Smart players will naturually split their units into groups to let them micro better and flank well etc. But when I build 100 lings, it would be nice to send them in one instant wave without having to give myself rsi to do so.
5: When all your units are selected, you should be able to use all their individual hotkeys. I can't think of a reason not to. Oh and you should be able to customise your hotkeys.
6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
Those are the basics, but I imagine I could think of more. Oh workers should split automatically.
The overall point is that it makes the game much more fun to play. Non-pro gamers can now play very high level style games, able to concentrate on strategy and micro, without having to do boring crap for 30-70% of the game. Pro gamers, freed of distractions will be able to pull off mindblowing pieces of micro.
New players can get into the game and actually play with their friends without 3 months of getting put off by doing boring and unneccessary multi-tasking while trying to enjoy a great game.
Oh, and while this is slightly off topic, why doesn't the game just start with 6 workers? No build except 4 pool would be affected, and the amount of time saved would be astronomical over time.
Cheers for reading, if you have intelligent well-reasoned stuff to say, would be appreciated.
lmao, add auto gosu-drop, add auto mudang-storm, add auto consume and swarm..... plz.
seriously, u have no idea about what makes BW such a great game all time.
On May 20 2005 20:48 FloOfy wrote: Now my 2 cents, i think an interesting idea would be some sort of "dodging" or "aiming" or whatever so that when a pro gamer would focus hard on a single unit like a marine he could be able to beat 2 marine controlled by a newbie. Like lets say 1 zealot controlled by Nal_ra would easily beat 1 zealot controlled by a random newbie.
Lets say a "shield" button that you could press at right moment and it blocks. But that could only be applied to a single unit at once. so we could see pros do that would multiple units while us normal people could not do that, making the gap between pros and us even bigger.
I also like the faction idea. Basicelly this could be a little bit based on player preference.
We could have lets say 3 marine types(one for each faction).
One that cost 80 mineral, is made as fast as normal marine, 60 life, 7 damage.
That marine would be a bit weaker than the real marine but it makes it a lot easier for beginners to spend their money and theres less units to control(more cost effective), less barracks to make and so on.
A second marine type that would be for intermediate...the normal 40/6 marine that we all know.
And maybe a third "pro gamer" marine that would be faster walking and 30/6.
So basicelly the begginner trying to use the pro version of the marine will just die to lurkers.... And the pro would clearly do a lot better with the pro version of the marine(imagine the micros).
Another way would be to just make it 3 different faction to have more possible strategies but that would be pretty hard for blizz to balance.
Lets say have a faction with vultures doing less damage but more mines. So today nada feels like massing mines, he picks this faction, other day he wants to probe rush a lot he might pick the damage vulture and so on.
Just to answer tal, even thought i agree game could be fun that way, i think it is a lot more impressive to see pros do what they do with a shitty interface than with a godly interface......there be almost no diff between pros and average korean A- on pgt. At casual play level it could be nice but for serious gamers i think the current interface makes it better.
Those changes are pretty big, and you couldn't really call it starcraft any more.
Also, the shield idea, which sounds cool, would either be not good enough (two huge armies battling) because the time spent keeping 1 unit from receiving 1 hit would hurt you due to the things you are NOT doing, or too good (a small group of units like in a storm or reaver drop) because it would make those things much, much stronger. I have lots of ideas like that that seem cool, but if you really think about it they would actually throw off the delicate balance and badassary of starcraft.
On May 20 2005 18:10 NewbSaibot wrote: Using a simplified interface would actually put players at the helm of a true military strategist, a general, and not just a grunt where you have to be told everything to do. ... Hell, maybe gamers arent even intelligent enough to come up with truely awe inspiring strats that would make the navy seals proud, so we will settle with marine micro and mutalisk control.
Wtf, no? I put money on the fact that pro starcraft gamers can go toe to toe with the best military minds in the world.
On May 20 2005 18:10 NewbSaibot wrote: Using a simplified interface would actually put players at the helm of a true military strategist, a general, and not just a grunt where you have to be told everything to do. ... Hell, maybe gamers arent even intelligent enough to come up with truely awe inspiring strats that would make the navy seals proud, so we will settle with marine micro and mutalisk control.
Wtf, no? I put money on the fact that pro starcraft gamers can go toe to toe with the best military minds in the world.
"stategist" games haven't done as well as strarcraft because they are slow, suck, and are played by people who can't act under stress and pressure
edit: my post makes more sense now edit2: edited my edit remark TT
personally i think you're an idiot, getting rid of things like macroing and and knowing when to spend what on units is part of the game play, also not knowing things like the map adds more strategy(that's why they got the map preview option)... if you got rid of that you'd be getting rid of one of the reasons why sc is soo exciting/unpredictable and why it takes SKILL to play it at a pro level
in fact, that post makes me want to go on another rant, which i won't do because i'm tired and need to be up at 8 tommorow for soccer, god damn texas heat
What this is about, is the interface. As a fairly average kinda playing games type person, I have to say that SC's interface is a piece of shit. You play a game and have to deal with a truly ridiculous amount of pointless crap to enjoy it.
Some things which should be changed:
1: When you build a worker unit, it should fucking go and mine. Once your gas geyser is done, the optimum amount of workers should mosey on down and get your gas straightaway. You shouldn't have to do it yourself, because it's intensely boring. If you don't want this stuff to happen automatically, then there should be an option for it, but your average gamer DOES NOT want to spend a good portion of every game telling their probes to go and mine.
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle.
3: You should be able to do a similar thing to ensure supply generating shit is made at the optimal times. So you mark out a series of spaces for depots and pylons, and they are built in the order you marked them to coincide with them finishing a bit before you hit supply limit.
4: You should be able to select all your units at the same time. The first thing I noticed when playing was that I could only pick 12 units. This is unneccessary in the extreme. Smart players will naturually split their units into groups to let them micro better and flank well etc. But when I build 100 lings, it would be nice to send them in one instant wave without having to give myself rsi to do so.
5: When all your units are selected, you should be able to use all their individual hotkeys. I can't think of a reason not to. Oh and you should be able to customise your hotkeys.
6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
Those are the basics, but I imagine I could think of more. Oh workers should split automatically.
The overall point is that it makes the game much more fun to play. Non-pro gamers can now play very high level style games, able to concentrate on strategy and micro, without having to do boring crap for 30-70% of the game. Pro gamers, freed of distractions will be able to pull off mindblowing pieces of micro.
1.I'll throw up an example here , you are building gas when you are rushed early with 10 scv and 4 marines.You bring your 'grunt' units along with your miners to attack when suddenly 3 miners go to the gas.Could be annoying. 2.OK so a pro isn't allowed to use this 'feature'....so lets say im the greatest non pro in the world and im using this feature.Some pro team picks me up and i'm not allowed to use this feature now.I'm fucked , no way i can compete with pros if suddenly a feature i have becomed so accustomed to is switched off.This is akin to map hacking. 3.So you get the AI to build your supplies when you are close to the limit? you still have to tell them where to be built or are they built randomly? If you want this feature you can use BWCoach anyway... 4.Been mentioned elsewhere , too powerful for zerg , although 16 units selectable for the upgrade would be nice 5.I can think of a reason not to.What if you have units in your group with the same hotkey.I have 6 mutalisks and 6 defilers in my group , i press g to morph to guardian , which morphs 6 guardians and gives me plague and a pointer.I accidentaly mis-click and plague my units.Even without mis-clicking i still have to press 'escape' , which will then cancel the morphing guardians 6.Wouldn't mind it , but would still decrease the skill required to play.
Also the next starcraft RTS game will have to be in 3d , whether it is an update or a new game.2d SC RTS now wouldn't sell 1/4 of what the original did.
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: What i'm basically saying, is what if Blizzard decided to make a sequel to starcraft, but did it with some sense. So like the CS making people, they realised the basic game is SO strong and great and fun, that changing that will fuck up the game.
You do know that the people making CS (gooseman basically) are noobs at competitive gaming right? They have been fucking up CS for every version and never give a crap about game balance. Remember back in 6.1 when AWP owns all? Until now AWP owns all in tournaments.
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: 6: The map should be already revealed but in fog of war, so you know where everything is on an unfamilliar map. This just makes sense, and would encourage more varied maps being used.
This was indeed done in one patch. Very good move, don't know why they removed it.
People avoid playing new maps because they're not familiar with them, so this help even the odds. Pros already memorised the map anyway (well, who here don't know LT?) so no harm to them.
But Blizz scrap it when "preview map" in chat room feature came out. Wonder why. Since we can preview the entire map, why not just remove the shroud.
Shroud = The blackness that blocks the terrain. Fog = Fog of War.
Why would this reduce the skill required?? Any serious players would have memorised the map in the first place.
Setting AI intetlligence when you play the computer would be good. Kinduv like in God of War: easy, medium, difficult, God. (that's not what they're called in God of War... sry). Not sure how many people actually still play computers, but when you want to try a new strategy and you don't want to log on to battlenet and wait for opponent who will have to then choose the race you want him to choose blablabla you get my point.
exept 4 and 5 which i could maybe agree with u ( with conditions ),all other features looks like you'd like the computer to do all the macro by itself.
The game you describe is definitely not a RTS game, looks more like a micro UMS
edit : like tell me what's the purpose of the "supply" concept if it builds all by itself ? if you want a game like that just make UMS where random unit spawns every 20 seconds in your base
1stly, making these changes does not dumb down starcraft at all. It would feature exactly the same level of strategy as it does at the moment. What it does dumb down is having to multi-task with boring things. You still have to make all the normal choices that we talk about in the strategy forum: What build to use, what strategy to use, what units to build, when to get what upgrades, when to harass when to attack, reacting to opponent etc... All you actually lose is the added distraction of spamming a load of hotkeys every 10 seconds in the middle of some gripping battle, or quickly clicking back to base and telling your probes to mine. Someone said this means that pro gamers wouldn't be as 'pro' anymore, or something like that but I disagree. There is a lot of room for improvement in micro, and you still have to multi-task if attacked in multiple places at once. It would still be the best RTS game of all time.
Capfou said that I'd like the computer to do the macro itself. In one way, yes. I just want to choose what units to build and not have to go back every 30 seconds to ensure they're still being built. Does anyone actually enjoy having to do this?
I'm also going to explain some of the things people have questioned:
1: You'd be able to turn off this option, so if you suspect an early rush, you could make it so your probes wouldn't go mine gas or whatever. 2: this feature wouldn't be 'switched off' for pros, but odds are they would switch it off themselves for those small timing advantages (e.g gundam's perfected gundam rush), particularly in the early game. 3: The supply thing isn't really that neccessary, but it would be nice to have a way of ensuring that while you launch some huge attack there is something less to worry about. 4: People's counter argument to this is complete shit. It would unbalance zerg?? Wtf? A pro player is fast enough that they basically can send everything all at once...it doesn't unbalance the game. It just means they have to devote unneccessary spamming time to get it to happen. Which is shit. 5: Obviously hotkeys could be slightly changed so nothing in the same race shares them. Also different hotkeys for burrow and lurker burrow could be put in. 6: no real objections have come against this, but anyone who thinks that you should just learn the map off by heart can shut the fuck up. It's thinking like that which means everyone just plays LT.
I didn't read all of your post.. Getting past 'SCs interface is a piece of shit' was hard enough, then you want workers to do their shit by themselves!?!?
Holy fucking shit. Scimmed through to paragraph 2, oh lord..
Look, I can barely enjoy any RTS games other than BW. And why is that? Because the BW interface is so good it is SICK. It is fast, efficent, not annoying at all (units doing shit by themselves is so fucking annoying --;;;;;;;.
Cuddly made some good suggestions, and some IMO bad ones but whatever --;; I guess chances are I wont like BW 2 :<
I would personally like to see some changes such as removal of the shroud, customizable hotkeys or automatic matchmaking. Making macro automatic takes you away from the basic principles behind Starcraft, like being able to respond properly under pressure, as has been said before, or chosing when to invest time in micro or macro. I can make great strategical choices, but my macro and micro will both suffer because I have spend that half a second to analise what to do. What I mean is it's good that the game makes you pay for investing time in strategical thinking and not coming up with anything good; what decision you make in that half a second must compensate for your temporary lack in micro and/or micro so you'd better make it a good one. If there is no such system, if you can just contemplate endlessly, your mind will begin to slack and the game will be less intense; fast thinking is thrilling, fun and enjoyable.
Proper arguments have been brought for and against all your suggestions. From there on it's just a matter of taste.
I believe most people here enjoy the current setup of the game. Making a game with those features is fine, just don't call it "Starcraft 2", more like "Warcraft 4", that would fit just right.
On May 21 2005 05:38 FrozenArbiter wrote: I didn't read all of your post.. Getting past 'SCs interface is a piece of shit' was hard enough, then you want workers to do their shit by themselves!?!?
Holy fucking shit. Scimmed through to paragraph 2, oh lord..
Look, I can barely enjoy any RTS games other than BW. And why is that? Because the BW interface is so good it is SICK. It is fast, efficent, not annoying at all (units doing shit by themselves is so fucking annoying --;;;;;;;.
Cuddly made some good suggestions, and some IMO bad ones but whatever --;; I guess chances are I wont like BW 2 :<
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.
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?
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.
Lol Tal-players ^_^ ''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.
Okay, you officially don't know half of what you're talking about. Sorry, but become a b+ player on PGTour, THEN talk about implementing some of these changes. You'll see how wrong you are.
''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).
It's shit like the '' art of cloning'' that shows how crap the interface is. In order to get your units to do a relatively obvious thing (e.g not utterly waste their abilities pointlessly firing 7 d-webs at one siege tank), it takes a vast amount of micro, so much that most players are advised not to even attempt such a strategy. I can't believe you think this is a 'good' part of the game.
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.
No I don't realise or agree that d-web being hard to use is part of balance. IIRC the SC makers initially expected the game to be played on fast instead of fastest, which kind of suggests that they thought fastest would be too fast to use all the abilities properly etc. They were right.
Do you know why i don't like your changes? 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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
On May 21 2005 09:18 Oxygen wrote: Okay, you officially don't know half of what you're talking about. Sorry, but become a b+ player on PGTour, THEN talk about implementing some of these changes. You'll see how wrong you are.
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.
This is illogical rubbish. For the first point, being good at games does not make you a competent game designer, just like how a good football player isn't generally going to be good at creating new sports or improving existing ones. The second point is a simple appeal to authority and not valid at all. Besides, if these players would be no better than newbies if the interface was improved, then they don't deserve to be considered good now. (I'm not saying this would happen, but you seem to imply it).
[QUOTE]On May 21 2005 09:46 Oxygen wrote: Sigh. radial is telling me not to post replies :[
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.
[/QUOTE] People play BW because it's a great game, not because it has a bad interface. And OvazioFrio is a War3 fanboy who trolls the b.net Starcraft forums to get a rise out of people, I'm just a huge Starcraft fan who sincerely believes what I'm posting.
On May 21 2005 09:49 OhThatDang wrote: seems like your just a lazy sc gamer
To me it seems like the conservative die-hards are being lazy in that they want to rely on their fast clicking rather than having to actually think.
Starcraft is a brilliant game, easily the best multiplayer RTS ever, but there is no reason it can't be improved even further. All the long-term great traditional games have undergone many changes; SC can do the same.
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.
Fuck no I wouldn't. To master something, first you have to state a definition, in my book: mastering a videogame is knowing what to do in the most common situations and being able to do it.
The way you want to change the "interface", you would only need to counter the other guy's strategy and micro to win. I'd give myself 2 weeks to learn all the counters and viable strategies, and 3 months and 2 weeks perfecting micro. Of course i'd fucking master that game in 4 months.
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.
Fuck no I wouldn't. To master something, first you have to state a definition, in my book: mastering a videogame is knowing what to do in the most common situations and being able to do it.
The way you want to change the "interface", you would only need to counter the other guy's strategy and some micro. I'd give myself 2 weeks to learn all the counters and viable strategies, and 3 months and 2 weeks perfecting micro. Of course i'd fucking master that game in 4 months.
If you think that's all there is to it you're a fool and certainly don't live up to your namesake. Also I don't see how're you're going to "master micro" in 3 months if you haven't done it by now.
On May 21 2005 09:57 Oxygen wrote: WHAT SAY YOU WE SEND THIS LAD TO THE TOTAL PERSPECTIVE VORTEX?
ALL FOR, SAY AYE!
AYE!
What say you stop spamming the thread just because you can't think of actual arguments for your irrational postion/desire to stay within your comfort zone?
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.
Fuck no I wouldn't. To master something, first you have to state a definition, in my book: mastering a videogame is knowing what to do in the most common situations and being able to do it.
The way you want to change the "interface", you would only need to counter the other guy's strategy and some micro. I'd give myself 2 weeks to learn all the counters and viable strategies, and 3 months and 2 weeks perfecting micro. Of course i'd fucking master that game in 4 months.
If you think that's all there is too it you're a fool and certainly don't live up to your namesake. Also I don't see how're you're going to "master micro" in 3 months if you haven't done it by now.
that's all ther would be to it if they implemented YOUR CHANGES. Right now as it is, you have to prioritize either microing or macroing, and micro tricks are so fucking hard because you have to macro at the same time!!! In your perfect world of automatic economy and unit production, micro tricks will be relatively easy because you won't have to concentrate on anything else. Sheesh, get it into your fucking head, i can do boxer micro after 3 months of training, what i can't do is micro and macro at the same time like boxer does in 3 months.
On May 21 2005 09:57 Oxygen wrote: WHAT SAY YOU WE SEND THIS LAD TO THE TOTAL PERSPECTIVE VORTEX?
ALL FOR, SAY AYE!
AYE!
What say you stop spamming the thread just because you can't think of actual arguments for your irrational postion/desire to stay within your comfort zone?
Considering your ideas are fucking retarded, I'd say his spamming his matching the intelligence of your 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.
Fuck no I wouldn't. To master something, first you have to state a definition, in my book: mastering a videogame is knowing what to do in the most common situations and being able to do it.
The way you want to change the "interface", you would only need to counter the other guy's strategy and some micro. I'd give myself 2 weeks to learn all the counters and viable strategies, and 3 months and 2 weeks perfecting micro. Of course i'd fucking master that game in 4 months.
If you think that's all there is too it you're a fool and certainly don't live up to your namesake. Also I don't see how're you're going to "master micro" in 3 months if you haven't done it by now.
that's all ther would be to it if they implemented YOUR CHANGES. Right now as it is, you have to prioritize either microing or macroing, and micro tricks are so fucking hard because you have to macro at the same time!!! In your perfect world of automatic economy and unit production, micro tricks will be relatively easy because you won't have to concentrate on anything else. Sheesh, get it into your fucking head, i can do boxer micro after 3 months of training, what i can't do is micro and macro at the same time like boxer does in 3 months.
You could do Boxer micro after 3 months of training? I seriously doubt it. Besides, there is a lot more to SC than microing and macroing at the same time, which is what you seem to be missing. I can't believe how easy you think SC is, as if the interface is the only thing holding you back from being a progamer. That's pretty laughable.
Besides, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong, since people will come along who couldn't play the game before due to not clicking fast enough, but who will be better at strategy/timing/intution than you ever will be, and hence will own you just as hard as Boxer would now.
On May 21 2005 09:49 OhThatDang wrote: seems like your just a lazy sc gamer
To me it seems like the conservative die-hards are being lazy in that they want to rely on their fast clicking rather than having to actually think.
Starcraft is a brilliant game, easily the best multiplayer RTS ever, but there is no reason it can't be improved even further. All the long-term great traditional games have undergone many changes; SC can do the same.
Oh, because currently SC requires no actual thinking!
Retard.
Sure it can be improved further, but not in the way you propose.
Why don't we lower the basketball hoop?
Make the football field smaller?
Make the football larger and lighter?
Make the basketball magnetically attracted to the hoop so that every shot goes in!????
On May 21 2005 09:58 Oxygen wrote: Gravity: in order to call someone a fool in a thread you can't be the biggest fool in this thread yourself.
Posting a flurry of jokes and ad-homs doesn't quite distract from the fact that you lost the argument badly.
you are the only one thinking he lost the argument. There isn't anybody blinder than the one that doesn't want to see.
*I'm* blind? Last I heard I was still posting coherently, not spamming in a retarded attempt to distract from the a lack of relevant arguments. Oh yeah, and cliches aren't arguments.
On May 21 2005 09:49 OhThatDang wrote: seems like your just a lazy sc gamer
To me it seems like the conservative die-hards are being lazy in that they want to rely on their fast clicking rather than having to actually think.
Starcraft is a brilliant game, easily the best multiplayer RTS ever, but there is no reason it can't be improved even further. All the long-term great traditional games have undergone many changes; SC can do the same.
Oh, because currently SC requires no actual thinking!
Way to miss my point, idiot. Remember, the order to do things is: Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
On May 21 2005 09:58 Oxygen wrote: Gravity: in order to call someone a fool in a thread you can't be the biggest fool in this thread yourself.
Posting a flurry of jokes and ad-homs doesn't quite distract from the fact that you lost the argument badly.
you are the only one thinking he lost the argument. There isn't anybody blinder than the one that doesn't want to see.
*I'm* blind? Last I heard I was still posting coherently, not spamming in a retarded attempt to distract from the a lack of relevant arguments. Oh yeah, and cliches aren't arguments.
Yes, yes you are blind. Posting coherently has nothing to do with it, if you fail to see the idiocy of your ideas.
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not changing anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
On May 21 2005 09:58 Oxygen wrote: Gravity: in order to call someone a fool in a thread you can't be the biggest fool in this thread yourself.
Posting a flurry of jokes and ad-homs doesn't quite distract from the fact that you lost the argument badly.
you are the only one thinking he lost the argument. There isn't anybody blinder than the one that doesn't want to see.
*I'm* blind? Last I heard I was still posting coherently, not spamming in a retarded attempt to distract from the a lack of relevant arguments. Oh yeah, and cliches aren't arguments.
Yes, yes you are blind. Posting coherently has nothing to do with it, if you fail to see the idiocy of your ideas.
I do indeed fail to see any "idiocy" in my ideas, so do you have any actual logical arguments rather than insults?
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
On May 21 2005 09:58 Oxygen wrote: Gravity: in order to call someone a fool in a thread you can't be the biggest fool in this thread yourself.
Posting a flurry of jokes and ad-homs doesn't quite distract from the fact that you lost the argument badly.
you are the only one thinking he lost the argument. There isn't anybody blinder than the one that doesn't want to see.
*I'm* blind? Last I heard I was still posting coherently, not spamming in a retarded attempt to distract from the a lack of relevant arguments. Oh yeah, and cliches aren't arguments.
Yes, yes you are blind. Posting coherently has nothing to do with it, if you fail to see the idiocy of your ideas.
I do indeed fail to see any "idiocy" in my ideas, so do you have any actual logical arguments rather than insults?
It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy.
On May 21 2005 09:49 OhThatDang wrote: seems like your just a lazy sc gamer
To me it seems like the conservative die-hards are being lazy in that they want to rely on their fast clicking rather than having to actually think.
Starcraft is a brilliant game, easily the best multiplayer RTS ever, but there is no reason it can't be improved even further. All the long-term great traditional games have undergone many changes; SC can do the same.
Oh, because currently SC requires no actual thinking!
Way to miss my point, idiot. Remember, the order to do things is: Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
My apologies! Next time I will not interpret what you said in a logical way!
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.
Fuck no I wouldn't. To master something, first you have to state a definition, in my book: mastering a videogame is knowing what to do in the most common situations and being able to do it.
The way you want to change the "interface", you would only need to counter the other guy's strategy and some micro. I'd give myself 2 weeks to learn all the counters and viable strategies, and 3 months and 2 weeks perfecting micro. Of course i'd fucking master that game in 4 months.
If you think that's all there is too it you're a fool and certainly don't live up to your namesake. Also I don't see how're you're going to "master micro" in 3 months if you haven't done it by now.
that's all ther would be to it if they implemented YOUR CHANGES. Right now as it is, you have to prioritize either microing or macroing, and micro tricks are so fucking hard because you have to macro at the same time!!! In your perfect world of automatic economy and unit production, micro tricks will be relatively easy because you won't have to concentrate on anything else. Sheesh, get it into your fucking head, i can do boxer micro after 3 months of training, what i can't do is micro and macro at the same time like boxer does in 3 months.
You could do Boxer micro after 3 months of training? I seriously doubt it. Besides, there is a lot more to SC than microing and macroing at the same time, which is what you seem to be missing. I can't believe how easy you think SC is, as if the interface is the only thing holding you back from being a progamer. That's pretty laughable.
Besides, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong, since people will come along who couldn't play the game before due to not clicking fast enough, but who will be better at strategy/timing/intution than you ever will be, and hence will own you just as hard as Boxer would now.
Let's see one of Boxer's micro tricks: killing a lurker with just one marine. I only needed 6 hours of practice to be able to do it consistently. Another boxer trick? Cloning what was it, 8 ghosts to lock down battlecruisers? You wanted to remove that now, didn't you? It wouldn't be an impressive thing to see with your changes, now would it?
I don't need to become progamer level to master a game. If somebody who has better strategy/timing/intuition comes along and owns me, still doesn't mean that i haven't mastered the game, reread my defintion of mastering a game please.
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside).
On May 21 2005 10:11 hixhix wrote: sorry, I cant argue with a newbie who think he masters all the aspects of the game. I'm so lost. *cry*
Are you refering to me? If so I don't understand, _Ender was the one claiming he could easily beat progamers with a few interface tweaks, not me. I realize that I would still get owned by anyone good, but I would have more fun doing it and be more likely to be able to do interesting strategies.
On May 21 2005 09:33 Tal wrote: No I don't realise or agree that d-web being hard to use is part of balance. IIRC the SC makers initially expected the game to be played on fast instead of fastest, which kind of suggests that they thought fastest would be too fast to use all the abilities properly etc. They were right.
But you do realise how incredibly fucking imbalanced smart casted d-webs or storms would be, rigth?
Hell, I'm not gosu or anything but I could decimate ANY zerg force with 6 full templars + smart cast.
T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* (under span of 5 seconds) All zerg forces are dead. Zerg: ... Me: HAHAHAHA PWNZED YOU FUCKING NOOB AHAHAHAHAHA!
People only bring about 4 templars they intend to use with their army. Why? Because templars are so inherently hard to use that getting of more than 6 good storms in a figth is nigh on impossible for even good gamers. Also, what is harder, storm casting with smart cast system or hydra dodging your entire army? One changes with your "uber fix" the other one doesn't. Should we add automicroed hydras as well to keep the balance?
I suggest you go compare WCIII's spell casters with SC's spellcasters and check how powerfull the spells are in comparison, and THEN tell me that it being so hard to cast doesn't have anything to do with balance.
Of course, we could just change all the spells at the same time we are noobing down the system while were at it... I mean, that's the goal rigth, to make the game accesible to new players? Not having a system that rewards you for skill.
On May 21 2005 09:33 Tal wrote: No I don't realise or agree that d-web being hard to use is part of balance. IIRC the SC makers initially expected the game to be played on fast instead of fastest, which kind of suggests that they thought fastest would be too fast to use all the abilities properly etc. They were right.
But you do realise how incredibly fucking imbalanced smart casted d-webs or storms would be, rigth?
If having a good interface leads to certain imbalances, adjust the balance, don't cripple the interface. Shitting up the interface just to avoid tweaking a few numbers seems pretty ass-backwards to me.
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside).
And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises?
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside).
And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises?
It's certainly possible to have a rational, logical argument about this, it's just not possible to *prove* it without testing. Also, everyone in the world could disagree with me, and if they resorted to emotion-based and knee-jerk reactionary stances without thought like most people in this thread, they would still be wrong.
On May 21 2005 10:18 radiaL wrote: jesus you are worse than ovazio congradulations!
I don't see how arguing what I believe can make me worse than a deliberate troll. Gee, I'm so sorry for not caving in to the irrational majority opinion on this issue.
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside).
And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises?
It's certainly possible to have a rational, logical argument about this, it's just not possible to *proove* it without testing. Also, everyone in the world could disagree with me, and if they resorted to emotion-based and knee-jerk reactionary stances without thought like most people in this thread, they would still be wrong.
or they could be right, but still wrong... or right but wrong but right again?
On May 21 2005 10:10 BinaryStar wrote: It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy.
Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D).
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion
"Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it.
And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it.
You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside).
And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises?
It's certainly possible to have a rational, logical argument about this, it's just not possible to *prove* it without testing. Also, everyone in the world could disagree with me, and if they resorted to emotion-based and knee-jerk reactionary stances without thought like most people in this thread, they would still be wrong.
No you can't.
You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons.
We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons.
It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them.
On May 21 2005 10:10 BinaryStar wrote: It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy.
Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D).
It's not an adhominem attack. It's nothing personal really. Rather, it's a statement of fact. I think your ideas are stupid, therefore I state what I think. If you want to take it as an insult, go ahead.
On May 21 2005 10:24 BinaryStar wrote: No you can't.
You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons.
We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons.
It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them.
No, you try to prove your argument by saying things like "if the interface was improved, anyone could be as good as a progamer". This is obviously wrong and illogical, so I reply with arguments such as "no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have". Sure, we don't have actual numerics or what have you, but that *doesn't* mean it has to boil down to "yes way" vs "no way" except at some very fundamental level we have not yet reached (ie so far everyone agrees that the game should be as fun and skillful as possible, we just disagree on how to achieve this).
And I call the knee-jerk reactions because they are. How you could describe the kind of "omg being able to select multiple buildings would destroy the game and make 2 week newbs as good as Oov" hysteria as being anything other than knee-jerk is beyond me.
On May 21 2005 10:26 EnDeR_ wrote: What makes SC the great game it is?
Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC
With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have:
Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II
Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion:
SC>SC II
Woah, im a logical genious
Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC.
On May 21 2005 10:10 BinaryStar wrote: It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy.
Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D).
It's not an adhominem attack. It's nothing personal really. Rather, it's a statement of fact. I think your ideas are stupid, therefore I state what I think. If you want to take it as an insult, go ahead.
It can never be a "fact" that something is idiotic. Like you just said, it's your *opinion* that they are "idiotic", but that is not a logical argument in the slightest (as you claimed).
On May 21 2005 10:10 BinaryStar wrote: It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy.
Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D).
It's not an adhominem attack. It's nothing personal really. Rather, it's a statement of fact. I think your ideas are stupid, therefore I state what I think. If you want to take it as an insult, go ahead.
It can never be a "fact" that something is idiotic. Like you just said, it's your *opinion* that they are "idiotic", but that is not a logical argument in the slightest (as you claimed).
Never said it was a logical argument. I said it was only logical to say what I think was fact. It's a subtle difference; I hope you can catch it.
On May 21 2005 10:26 EnDeR_ wrote: What makes SC the great game it is?
Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC
With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have:
Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II
Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion:
SC>SC II
Woah, im a logical genious
Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC.
Assigning workers to minerals is the easiest part of macro, a newbie can master that in less than 2 weeks. You are talking about removing all macro, not just that part.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
On May 21 2005 10:26 EnDeR_ wrote: What makes SC the great game it is?
Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC
With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have:
Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II
Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion:
SC>SC II
Woah, im a logical genious
Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC.
Assigning workers to minerals is the easiest part of macro, a newbie can master that in less than 2 weeks. You are talking about removing all macro, not just that part.
Since when am I talking about "removing all macro". Units will still have to be made, and you will still have to know how many factories to build, when to build them, the best time to build which units (ie in many cases, particularly early game, building units seperately at each factory will still be the best; multi-selection helps most late-game), etc. Just because you won't have to be able to press 1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second isn't going to somehow remove the strategy, skill and depth from the game, and if it does then this game sucks after all (hint: I don't think it does).
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics?
It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth.
On May 21 2005 10:26 EnDeR_ wrote: What makes SC the great game it is?
Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC
With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have:
Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II
Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion:
SC>SC II
Woah, im a logical genious
Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC.
Assigning workers to minerals is the easiest part of macro, a newbie can master that in less than 2 weeks. You are talking about removing all macro, not just that part.
Since when am I talking about "removing all macro". Units will still have to be made, and you will still have to know how many factories to build, when to build them, the best time to build which units (ie in many cases, particularly early game, building units seperately at each factory will still be the best; multi-selection helps most late-game), etc. Just because you won't have to be able to press 1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second isn't going to somehow remove the strategy, skill and depth from the game, and if it does then this game sucks after all (hint: I don't think it does).
No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me.
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics?
It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth.
Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
On May 21 2005 10:24 BinaryStar wrote: No you can't.
You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons.
We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons.
It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them.
No, you try to prove your argument by saying things like "if the interface was improved, anyone could be as good as a progamer". This is obviously wrong and illogical, so I reply with arguments such as "no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have". Sure, we don't have actual numerics or what have you, but that *doesn't* mean it has to boil down to "yes way" vs "no way" except at some very fundamental level we have not yet reached (ie so far everyone agrees that the game should be as fun and skillful as possible, we just disagree on how to achieve this).
And I call the knee-jerk reactions because they are. How you could describe the kind of "omg being able to select multiple buildings would destroy the game and make 2 week newbs as good as Oov" hysteria as being anything other than knee-jerk is beyond me.
Actually--*I* didn't say any of that, first of all.
Secondly, don't use the words "improve" so eagerly.
Thirdly, the main reason people (or at least me) are against it is because it's just dumbing down the game and removing an important aspect of it. You seem to think it's worth the sacrifice; we don't. Again, it's a matter of opinion.
It's an exaggeration I suppose, but not a knee-jerk reaction. Oov is revered for his crazy macro--the changes you suggest would make achieving his level of macro much easier, even compensating for his improvements post-interface changes. You can't deny that allowing you to instantly macro by pressing two (maybe four) hotkeys wouldn't make the macro incredibly easy.
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle.
That means you don't have to go back to your base and produce more units, it means you have less things to do in a battle, it means you have to multitask less, it definately means that you won't get an advantage for being fast if at that instant you managed to get your units in a perfect formatation and went back to main and produce, and go back as fast as you can, so right after the battle is done you can overwhelm him. That advantage would be lost, meaning you don't get rewarded for being fast, meaning you don't get rewarded for practicing more, meaning you lower the skill level required.
On May 21 2005 10:37 EnDeR_ wrote: No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me.
No, Tal said that, and I'm not sure if I agree completely on that point (I'm arguing more in favour of interface improvements in general; most people here are opposed to almost all possible interface improvements of any kind, so it doesn't really matter which ones specifically I defend), but even if that was implemented, the best players would still build units manually most of the game in order to get the most efficiency and avoid losing minerals randomly when they need them, so even this extreme measure would hardly remove macro from the game.
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics?
It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth.
Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand.
I can discuss more than one thing at a time, that's the magic of the internet :D.
gravity, if I carefully explain why the changes you want to implent into the game are a bad thing (not all are but most) will you look on my argument and then concede defeat, or will you just copy and paste some minor part of it, answer that part and then let it slide?
Because I can you know, since I know a thing or two about development. But it will be a long as post, like a few pages and I do not feel like writing shit like that up and then having some ignorant bitch ignore it and keep on flaming.
Actually would be better to take it by IM or something. And before you start flaming me for it not coming immediatly, no I don't have time tonigth because it's saturday nigth but I could do it tomorow.
On May 21 2005 10:37 EnDeR_ wrote: No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me.
No, Tal said that, and I'm not sure if I agree completely on that point (I'm arguing more in favour of interface improvements in general; most people here are opposed to almost all possible interface improvements of any kind, so it doesn't really matter which ones specifically I defend), but even if that was implemented, the best players would still build units manually most of the game in order to get the most efficiency and avoid losing minerals randomly when they need them, so even this extreme measure would hardly remove macro from the game.
No, it does matter what points you are defending. No one here is absolutely against interface changes; they are mostly against the changes Tal suggested. Since you showed up in the middle of the argument in defense of Tal's position and haven't really specified which ones you are defending, don't be surprised when people associate you with Tal's suggestions.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do. You want to take that away from them? It is still possible to be a good strategist and have relatively worse micro than other progamers like oov and win, like he does. All those strategies he does are possible, solely because of his insanely good macro.
[QUOTE]On May 21 2005 10:40 BinaryStar wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2005 10:28 gravity wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2005 10:24 BinaryStar wrote: No you can't.
You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons.
We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons.
It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them.[/QUOTE] No, you try to prove your argument by saying things like "if the interface was improved, anyone could be as good as a progamer". This is obviously wrong and illogical, so I reply with arguments such as "no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have". Sure, we don't have actual numerics or what have you, but that *doesn't* mean it has to boil down to "yes way" vs "no way" except at some very fundamental level we have not yet reached (ie so far everyone agrees that the game should be as fun and skillful as possible, we just disagree on how to achieve this).
And I call the knee-jerk reactions because they are. How you could describe the kind of "omg being able to select multiple buildings would destroy the game and make 2 week newbs as good as Oov" hysteria as being anything other than knee-jerk is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Actually--*I* didn't say any of that, first of all.[/quote]
I know, I was referring more to the general hysteria in these threads.
[quote]Secondly, don't use the words "improve" so eagerly.[/quote]
I consider these things improvements so I refer to them as such.
[quote]Thirdly, the main reason people (or at least me) are against it is because it's just dumbing down the game and removing an important aspect of it. You seem to think it's worth the sacrifice; we don't. Again, it's a matter of opinion.[/quote] Removing things that are largely mindless (1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second, individually selecting HTs in a hurry, etc) is hardly "dumbing down" anything. In fact, I would say that the current interface limitations "dumb down" the game from what it *could* be.
[quote]It's an exaggeration I suppose, but not a knee-jerk reaction. Oov is revered for his crazy macro--the changes you suggest would make achieving his level of macro much easier, even compensating for his improvements post-interface changes. You can't deny that allowing you to instantly macro by pressing two (maybe four) hotkeys wouldn't make the macro incredibly easy.[/QUOTE] If all that makes Oov good is his macro then maybe we're mistaken to "revere" him. But I think Oov has shown great strategic skill, timing, etc, in his games, and none of that would be lost; in fact, he would have more time to do things like his wraith harass due to fewer clicks being spent on factories (again, at least in the late game; early game manual control would still be more efficient because no likely algorithm is going to be as smart as a human in dynamic competitive game). And macroing with fewer keys would certainly make it easier, but I don't think it would make it "incredibly easy"; it would just make the emphasis more on spending your money right at the right time, rather than just spending it period (since the latter would be much easier).
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics?
It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth.
Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand.
I can discuss more than one thing at a time, that's the magic of the internet :D.
You just boggle down the thread with useless post to anybody else besides you 2.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do.
Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly.
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics?
It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth.
Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand.
I can discuss more than one thing at a time, that's the magic of the internet :D.
On May 21 2005 10:37 EnDeR_ wrote: No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me.
No, Tal said that, and I'm not sure if I agree completely on that point (I'm arguing more in favour of interface improvements in general; most people here are opposed to almost all possible interface improvements of any kind, so it doesn't really matter which ones specifically I defend), but even if that was implemented, the best players would still build units manually most of the game in order to get the most efficiency and avoid losing minerals randomly when they need them, so even this extreme measure would hardly remove macro from the game.
No, it does matter what points you are defending. No one here is absolutely against interface changes; they are mostly against the changes Tal suggested..
That's not really true, people here have historically been against practically any interface changes. Heck, people even massively bitched about right-click rally points in 1.12, which didn't exactly ruin the game by any means. I do think Tal might be suggesting too high a level of automation, but mainly because such heavy automation would probably end up being so inefficient as to be nearly useless, which is the opposite of making the game too easy.
If all that makes Oov good is his macro then maybe we're mistaken to "revere" him.
That's not what I said, but sure, OK.
You said Oov was revered because of his macro. Maybe if would have been better for me to say that it's dumb to revere an SC player because they sequentially click their factories fast, rather than because of their strategic ability or their subtle timing and intuition or whatever.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do.
Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly.
This is where our opinions differ. I want a game where if i spend 7 years playing, and you only spend 3, i want to be able to beat you every time, i want a game where time spent rewards your skill, i want a game where after 7 years of playing it, there's still things to be learned.
You want a game that can be mastered faster, in short, you want an easier game
I said Oov was revered for his macro. I never said it was the sole reason he was revered, which your previous post was implying.
"Maybe if would have been better for me to say that it's dumb to revere an SC player because they sequentially click their factories fast, rather than because of their strategic ability or their subtle timing and intuition or whatever."
As I said before, it's a matter of preference. however, you seem to think your way of thinking is the right one, and everyone else seems to be disagreeing.
I think I can explain my point more clearly by saying that I want to focus on increasing the focus on the *interactive* (as in interacting with your opponent) portions of the game.
For example, in macro:
Deciding how many units to build vs. buildings/expansions in order to do best vs. the enemy = interesting macro
1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh = boring macro
In micro:
manuevring with lings to cut off some marines' retreat, hence trapping and killing them = interesting micro
quickly clicking on a single temp so you can use storm = boring micro
I would like to see changes the emphasive the interesting, more interactive portions of the game, while demphasizing the less interactive busywork.
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do.
Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly.
This is where our opinions differ. I want a game where if i spend 7 years playing, and you only spend 3, i want to be able to beat you every time, i want a game where time spent rewards your skill, i want a game where after 7 years of playing it, there's still things to be learned.
You want a game that can be mastered faster, in short, you want an easier game
No, no, no, no, no. I want a strategically deep game that's about fast thinking, not fast clicking. I want SC to be like Lightning Chess, you seem to want it to be like an MMORPG.
On May 21 2005 11:00 BinaryStar wrote: I'm done here. You're one bullheaded fucktard.
Sorry, but persistance is necessary when you're trying to change entrenched irrational thinking. Even religion is finally starting to die in the West (except perhaps the US).
Guys, how about we ignore Gravity/Tal, and focus on ideas that might actually have value, like some of CCK's ideas.
1) Better graphics. Yeah it's going to have to be in 3rd but with a fixed viewpoint that doesn't matter at all. 1b) Observer mode with completly free camera controll. (Imagine how wicked the battles would be when you can zoom down rigth down to the marine in Ground Controll style. 1c) Free camera mode in replays as well.
I prefer non-3D but I guess it is inevitable. It would have to be functional, though, and couldn't look like shit (WC3 units look terrible and are incredibly hard to distinguish during battles).
2) Better interface. 2b) Find idle worker command (why not?) Meh, wouldn't really bother me, I guess it could be implemented. 2c) Larger possible groups. I say 16 units max. 2e) Toggle for HP/Shields/Mana for all units when selected, both in portrait and in game. (Would help you find the templar with mana left for a storm that much easier) Yeah, being able to see energy would help immensely. But not exact numbers, just for example the way the shield is displayed in the wireframe... 2f) Mode to let individiual units selected shine up for easier identification on the battlefield when selected as portrait. (You click injured zeal and get some kind of signal so you instantly know which one is injured) An excellent idea, except it already exists. There's a little green circle below the units 2g) Que construction for workers, especially protoss. (So yeah, queing a probe to build 5 pylons late game makes the game easier but... Yeah, sure, I'm open-minded, I see how that can be annoying 2h) Units autmatically move out of the way when you put down a structure. (Finally being able to plcae sunkens in mineral line. YES!) Best idea ever. It's no longer about skill but patience - how long will it take before you move all your fucking peons to the other mineral line so you can put a turret there?
Lets say a "shield" button that you could press at right moment and it blocks. But that could only be applied to a single unit at once.Nah, I think it could be applied to a whole group of units. so we could see pros do that would multiple units while us normal people could not do that, making the gap between pros and us even bigger.Nah, I think it's hard enough to block appropriately as it is
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have"
Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview?
Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it.
Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general.
And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert).
Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever.
Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do.
Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly.
This is where our opinions differ. I want a game where if i spend 7 years playing, and you only spend 3, i want to be able to beat you every time, i want a game where time spent rewards your skill, i want a game where after 7 years of playing it, there's still things to be learned.
You want a game that can be mastered faster, in short, you want an easier game
No, no, no, no, no. I want a strategically deep game that's about fast thinking, not fast clicking. I want SC to be like Lightning Chess, you seem to want it to be like bodybuilding.
Sc is already ligthning Chess, you just want to remove the option of focusing on learning macro. Right now we have the oov type player (focused on his macro), and the boxer type player (focused on his micro). They are both equally successful players (well, not exactly, but for the sake of the argument, suppose they are), automating economy and macro, you remove the oov factor. You efficiently kill one option of playing this game. I do not want that, i want to have more options of beating you than just outthinking you, i want my 123412341234 hours of training worth it.
Why irrational? You obviously have no idea what you are saying, you have little knowledge about the game, and you want people to be open-minded when the most stubborn person here is you. I have no intention to argue with a person whose mind can't be changed. Not to mention that this thread is a worthless pile of shit, no thanks to me, and I am trying to redeem myself.
Oxygen, i like the idea of being able to block with a shield or something. I'd make it reserchable and you can manage them all at the same time, but making them have cooldown after using it (still shorter than cooldown between attacks to make it useful). I'd really like to see progamers killing for example in a zealot vs zealot fight, half the other guy's zealots and having no casualties, it'd actually make pvp interesting imo.
On May 21 2005 11:08 EnDeR_ wrote: You want a game that can be mastered faster, in short, you want an easier game
No, no, no, no, no. I want a strategically deep game that's about fast thinking, not fast clicking. I want SC to be like Lightning Chess, you seem to want it to be like bodybuilding.
Sc is already ligthning Chess
Not really, if lightning chess was like SC, you would have to pick up your pieces with chopsticks, which might be an interesting gimmick but would ultimately reduce the depth of the game.
you just want to remove the option of focusing on learning macro.
How so? Not requiring as much fast clicking to do macro doesn't mean you can't have a macro focus, there is always room to do better.
Right now we have the oov type player (focused on his macro), and the boxer type player (focused on his micro). They are both equally successful players (well, not exactly, but for the sake of the argument, suppose they are), automating economy and macro, you remove the oov factor. You efficiently kill one option of playing this game. I do not want that, i want to have more options of beating you than just outthinking you, i want my 123412341234 hours of training worth it.
Oov isn't suddenly going to suck if you improve the interface, I don't know why you keep insisting on this. Also, being able to beat someone other than by "just" outthinking them is not a good thing. Having more options is not always better. Again, if you want a game where you'll always win if you play 1231242152 hours and there's little room for inherent skill and quick insight, go play an MMORPG, not a strategy game. I'd rather have a top SC player be like Jose Capablanca (a famous chess world champion who practiced very little) than be like a fat MMORPG nerd who plays his game 18 hours a day (though that's not to say that practice and preperation shouldn't be neccessary to a reasonable extent).
Im just looking at some of the things in the first post, and havent read all 9 pages of posts, so Ill just respond to that:
What the fuck? Hell if you call yourself a SC player! All your so-called asinine suggestions are to make the average player a lot lazier, and are rather similar to the WCIII gameplay, which is slow as it is. Get oot!
On May 21 2005 11:15 useless wrote: Im just looking at some of the things in the first post, and havent read all 9 pages of posts, so Ill just respond to that:
What the fuck? Hell if you call yourself a SC player! All your so-called asinine suggestions are to make the average player a lot lazier, and are rather similar to the WCIII gameplay, which is slow as it is. Get oot!
Oov isn't suddenly going to suck if you improve the interface, I don't know why you keep insisting on this.
Why do we keep insisting on this? Because if you have been playing the game since 1999, you'd know that's what makes him fucking impressive.
Also, being able to beat someone other than by "just" outthinking them is not a good thing
Agree
Having more options is not always better
How can not having more options be better? Care to elaborate?
Again, if you want a game where you'll always win if you play 1231242152 hours and there's little room for inherent skill and quick insight, go play an MMORPG, not a strategy game.
Intelligent players will still be better than those who can't think shit and only practice and practice. What i'm saying is that I really want to beat that newbie that has started playing last year. I want him to have zero chance of even making it a close game.
Why progamers are so good at multitasking is because the countless hours they've practised. If you find something hard, then practise harder. Don't think so low about you self, wanting the game to change so it suits your weaker abilities.
If you make a game easier, then it won't last that long. A video game with 24 stages versus a game with only 12 will simply be played for a longer time span. But it's is the multiplayer part that makes games really survive these days, and if you make multiplayer easier and less rewarding. Then the same thing will happen there. Starcraft has been around for over 8 years, and it's not because of its singelplayer campaign.
The amount of time you have to put into Starcraft, and the rewarding factor for those who do, is so extremely perfect in Starcraft, and is part of the reason Multiplayer Starcraft will never die, and just become better.
Neither of you understand why Starcraft is far and away the most popular RTS. Now, I understand you want to inflate your respective egos (tal to a much lesser extent) by going against the norm, but you seem to think that the norm is inherrently wrong. That is not true.
You seem to think that everything not involving unit control is "mundane". Why stop there? Why should you be forced to tell your units to attack? Why shouldn't they go by themselves? Why should you be forced to stim your marines? Why shouldn't the game win for you without having to do anything?
Well, the reason lies in the difference between "games" and "movies": control. Games are all about control. You want to remove a lot of control from Starcraft. One of the reasons Starcraft is so popular is because it allows and requires a mind-boggling amount of control, which means there will always be a higher level of play to attain. Very few people ever reach the top ranks of players, and when they do they get proffesional contracts because others enjoy and appreciate the amount of skill involved in their play and are happy to watch them.
In fact, the large proffesional scene is the other reason Starcraft stays alive. If you instantly chopped off nearly all macro from the game, then the high levels of play would be much easier to attain. Mircroing is not nearly as hard when that's all you have to worry about, when you units pump for themselves and your supply automatically goes up (in fact, why not remove supply deopts, etc. from the game under your scheme?), etc. Those great players would not longer seem as great when the skill level between you and them has been chopped down. There would no longer be the "wow" factor when watching them. There wouldn't be something to aspire to. As it is now, it's a blast watching professional VODs because you can really appreciate what is going on, and it makes you want to play and practice more to get closer to their level.
If you hate having to control that many things at once then quite frankly Starcraft isn't the game for you. Play a different RTS, or even a game from a different genre. But either way, go the fuck away and take your completely undeserved elitist attitudes with you.
edit: If it's full of typos, fine, I don't want to waste more time responding to trolls.
Energies: hhhmmmfffff, now i get mad and will stop breathing *turns violet *starts choking Energies: aghgh, ok, maybe not, but... i'll be back...Sayonara baby...
gravity what you don't seem to understand is that it's actually these so called boring aspects of the game that makes the interesting aspects what they are. It's because bw micro is hard ( because of macro ) that's it's interesting ( more interesting imo than war 3, where it's just pulling back injured units ).
+ many ppl actually get satisfaction from having a fluent multitasking because it's freeing time for micro or strategical thinking.
Strategical depth in bw is also linked to the speed of the game, thinking is hard in bw because you need to think fast
I, for example, have watched quite a lot of vods and replays and i know what to do in most common situations, still i suck
I honestly would be B- on pgt with your interface, still i'm D with a shitty record and i deserve it because bw is also about speed ( thinking / reacting / decision making / fast memory ) and i suck at it mostly because i don't play enough
BW is not chess, and it's good the way it is, it's strategic "density"is somehow linked to all the aspects your are calling "boring" because of the pressure you get.
You're wrong becausse you think strategy should never be linked with time and the "mind-space" you' have at the moment of a decision.
Don't you get that impression by watching replays ? like you could always have done better than the guy ? ( if you're watching a replay around your skill level ) i think this is what shows what bw is also about : thinking FAST acting FAST
btw with no macro / economy to control ( on ums ) it took me 25 minutes to be able to kill 1 lurk with one marine 9/10 times. that was 8 months ago and i never was able to pull it in real game, guess why ^_^
On May 21 2005 11:58 ChApFoU wrote: btw with no macro / economy to control ( on ums ) it took me 25 minutes to be able to kill 1 lurk with one marine 9/10 times. that was 8 months ago and i never was able to pull it in real game, guess why ^_^
I had to learn marine micro from almost zero ( i never play terran, i just suck with those little buggers ), so it took me a frigging long while , i was doing other things too, such as 12 marines 4 medics split against 2 burrowed lurks and such. Still, i'm just very sloppy with the mouse, the macro aspect of the game is much more appealing to me .
I was very frustrated with my zvz at the time, so i was trying out some tvz to see if i was better at it, but i wasn't , i'm just that useless with terran .
Try and look at it in a different way. Playing with this poor interface is essentially the same as having a good interface but having to continuously bounce a basketball while playing, or continuously have to count backwards in 3's from 745 while playing. It's a distraction which means you cannot play the game as well as without it. Surely the game will be more fun and develop more if you take away the distraction so people can focus on sophisticated ambushes, complicated strategies and implementing their plans without fighting the game itself?
And to the earlier point about making storm easier to use would be the end of zerg, bear in mind that queens would be vastly easier to use, and you'd be able to select all your hydras to dodge with instead of only 12.
Also bear in mind that these changes to interface are just my suggestions (no shit? ). It would be nice to see some very good players like testie or bigballs respond with their thoughts and suggestions.
On May 21 2005 13:20 Tal wrote: Try and look at it in a different way. Playing with this poor interface is essentially the same as having a good interface but having to continuously bounce a basketball while playing
It's more like having to bounce a basketball while playing basketball.
Brood war requires you to think quickly and to multitask. For most people who play it competitively, that's what makes it good. For them, it is very satisfying to achieve fluidity of thought under pressure.
For some, it is/was not fun to think like that (or to try), and most of them have moved on to WC3 or just given up the game entirely. It is good to have both types of game.
Thinking that preferring these "interface" (wtf) changes constitutes thinking "outside the box" is silly. There is nothing inherently worse about them, it is true, but there is nothing inherently better, and they are already implemented in WC3. Why not allow there to be two (or more) styles of game?
All of the "boring" things you mention are not boring because you are competing to do them better than the other player. So, even while no units are fighting, you are still competing with the other player to build your economy better, while scouting, while harassing, while deciding what to do next. If you want the game to be purely about battles, play a game made for that, like Tekken. All that is micro management and nothing else.
It's not like basketball without having to dribble/bounce the ball. That would be starcraft with no micro as opposed to no macro.
Aeileron: yes they are boring. With my system you would still compete to build your economy better, but without bashing buttons the whole damn game. Tekken is a terrible example, as it features no economy/strategic element and is purely micro...a very simple and uninteresting micro when compared to the epic (and cool looking) battles of starcraft.
And for the last time to people saying play warcraft 3: I don't play that game because it is too slow, less balanced then starcraft, too much emphasis on heroes, has less interesting maps, less hard counters, and (somehow) too high graphics requirements. I also like the sci-fi aspect, units and general feel of Starcraft more then the 'lets rip off warhammer badly' style of warcraft. Having said that warcraft is a laugh with a few mates, but not really something I want to get into.
The fact that warcraft 3 (apparently, I've only played about 10 games, and that was before grasping the basic concepts of starcraft) has a better interface is nothing to do with this debate, as in practically every other respect it is an infinitely worse game.
These "boring" things you mention are what makes individual attributes and thus creates diverse individuality and competition between conflicting styles of play.
On May 21 2005 13:20 Tal wrote: Try and look at it in a different way. Playing with this poor interface is essentially the same as having a good interface but having to continuously bounce a basketball while playing, or continuously have to count backwards in 3's from 745 while playing. It's a distraction which means you cannot play the game as well as without it. Surely the game will be more fun and develop more if you take away the distraction so people can focus on sophisticated ambushes, complicated strategies and implementing their plans without fighting the game itself?
And to the earlier point about making storm easier to use would be the end of zerg, bear in mind that queens would be vastly easier to use, and you'd be able to select all your hydras to dodge with instead of only 12.
Also bear in mind that these changes to interface are just my suggestions (no shit? ). It would be nice to see some very good players like testie or bigballs respond with their thoughts and suggestions.
Tal, how many hydras you select does not matter. Hydras move like any other unit, they will bunch, and when any decent player (face it, micro is easy) can blanket your entire army with storms in seconds it hardly matters.
And queens are allready easy to use, but they are still not worth it.
Since I do not enjoy writing long posts to people who will ignore them.
First and biggst negative factor of the easier interface system = It will decrease the maxium level of skill attainable.
Second = It will drastically change the strategies employed by players by drastically making the more macro intense strategies more preferable.
Third = It would end spellcasters as we know them. With more efficent micro and more time to commit to micro spellcasters can for balance reasons no longer be the few special units you have in your army, instead they will have to be reduced in power not to breake the game. Mass casters will be viable, but there powers will be only sligthly higher than their normal opposites (just like in WCIII) and it will be just like microing normal units. The game in it's current form will therefore blend down a bit, as skillfull use of caster units will no longer have the same effect as usual and can no longer be used to turn the game around.
Fourth = The new styles will bring forth huge new balance changes to all races and units.
Fifth = The more inefficent casters along with the new mass of still expendeble units will make for large battles wich despite the easier interface will be hard to micro for fuller effect. Except for early game which will be much more micro intense at equal skill levels (but unequal skill levels will have no micro at all as one player contains and expoes) the game will quickly develop into either a game with battles resembeling a fast map or will quickly turn in favour to one of the players who gains the economic advantage. Micro of the front lines will still not be as important as expanding, defending expansions from harass and harassing yourself. With economic advantage 99 % of all games will be won with either overwhelming unmicroed forces or higher tech unit after swiftly gaining map advantage.
At higher levels of play comebacks will be near impossible.
Sixth = Due to weaker casters and special abilities and expandeble units great feats of micro will not occur as frequently as before. Winning the game will become about outexpanding your opponent.
For all you people saying that the game will turn into WC III. It won't. It won't even be close. There is however another, very popular video game it will come to resemble in more ways than once.
Total Annihalation. Not a bad game at all, and probably the game your looking for Tal.
Also, automaking units in it's own would not ruin the game in it's current form. The only real effect would be to lessen the skillgap between players and maxium attainable skills.
And yes, it's like basketball without dribbeling the ball. Starcraft without micro would be like basketball without scoring. The dribbeling of the ball is only there to get you into a postion to pass or score, it's the points that count. If your a superior dribbler you'll have more chances to score but if you still can't you will still lose the game.
It's a perfect analogy. (or whatever you call it.)
As for why autoproducing units would not break the game.
Producing a unit requires you to get
a) The buildings, meaning the production and the tech in a decent building placement. b) Amass the supply required c) Amass the resources required
The click to build the unit is really only the final act of something you've been doing long before in your mind. You didn't think about it but all that work was just because you wanted to get the units your about to buy. So taking away that part is really not that important, it only reduces two aspects of the game. 1) How good you are at clicking fast and 2) How good you are at multitasking.
The first thing blow goats, I don't find clicking at gateways fun either. The second one is a true testament of skill however. The ability to think about two or perhaps even three and in extrem cases four things at the same time and working out how to execute those things in real time is a true sign of skills.
True you'll find something else to do in the mean time, but something else that you now thing is nowhere near as boring will fill it's place and you'll just complain again.
I have a better basketball analogy that applies to this discussion.
Phil Jackson vs Shaquille O'Neal.
I think everyone would say that phil jackson knows more about basketball and is a better strategist than Shaq. But Shaq is clearly the more dominant player because of his physical abilities. Would it make sense to say let's make the interface of basketball easier by reducing the height of the rim to 5 feet?
In the case of basketball, it would not because it is a sport that involves a combination of smarts/strategy and physical skills. There a few sports that are almost 100% physical, such as weightlifting or sprinting. But the vast majority of sports involve a balance of brains and braun.
Starcraft IMHO, is the ultimate e-sport because it involves the physical aspect on sports in addition to its strategical depth. Not everyone can pound away at a keyboard like nada, or click as accurately as he can. We marvel at top pros because the combine not only incredible physical abilities but also because it's in conjunction with strategical genius. There is a perfect balance ion starcraft. The game's interface does include a lot of "junk", but this junk requires insane hand-eye coordination and it is this hand-eye coordination that allows for variation of skill.
Chess or Go is a game of pure strategy. There is no physical aspect of it involved and implementing the recommendations of tal will turn it to a game of pure strategy. Personally, I think it's much better left as a sport.
4 and 5 are the only ones I can agree with. Maybe Blizzard could increase the unit selection up to 20 at a time or so. With 1.12, players already should know where everything are because they intelligently used map preview =\ Sharper graphics would be nice. Everything else you said is utter crap, and it only makes the game easier, eliminates skill, and also eliminates mistakes. It's like saying the nex version of Counter Strike should have auto-head-targeting. If you suck, play more. Don't complain and ask Blizzard to make it easier for you. If you don't like good RTS's like Starcraft, go away and play your pathetically boring crappy games that die out after like a year. Long live Starcraft!
*EDIT* I only read the first post, because I'm too lazy to read through 10 pages of other people's posts. So, if I'm sounding stupid due to my ignorance of the information contained in the said 10 pages, please accept my humble apologies.
1)The 'two' still havent dealt with the issue of what they take away from the game with the interface changes (NOTWITHSTANDING what it MAY bring to the game); specifically the boxer '8 BC/Carrier lockdown'. The sheer brilliance of this move is completely lost with these changes. And my argument here is you've simply ignored this point.
2) The HT v Hydra situation has been brought up. The improvements to storm casting would basically make the mass hydra style completely unviable in the game's current form. "Re-balance the game" you say? "fix the problems it creates" you say? Guess what, you just indirectly changed the game, not the fucking interface. You're messing with the delicate balance that has tentatively been achieved in this game. A, lets face it, rare occurence in this genre.
3)The strength of 'oov' style players is not simply that they can macro, and live off that macro alone. It's because they can macro and yet still consider and EMPLOY the strategic and micro based elements of the game. Oov can still macro like a fucking machine and employ his 'gosu wraith harass'. Yellow can macro to a competent level, and still 'use his lings to cut off straggling marines'. Reach is known as 'mass toss', and yet who can forget some of the BRILLIANT fucking storms he's been able to pull off under immense pressure (think the game vs boxer on NFZ). The simple fact is, as has been mentioned here countless times, BW is ridiculously deep. There are many, many areas in which you can improve. Removing one of these areas is not guaranteed (nor anywhere near fucking likely imo) to improve the overall quality of the game.
If all that makes Oov good is his macro then maybe we're mistaken to "revere" him.
That's not what I said, but sure, OK.
You said Oov was revered because of his macro. Maybe if would have been better for me to say that it's dumb to revere an SC player because they sequentially click their factories fast, rather than because of their strategic ability or their subtle timing and intuition or whatever.
If you guys think its just a matter of speed? Why not SPEED THE FUCK UP and do the same? What are you, one handed? Stop trolling and go play BW.
On May 21 2005 13:20 Tal wrote: Try and look at it in a different way. Playing with this poor interface is essentially the same as having a good interface but having to continuously bounce a basketball while playing, or continuously have to count backwards in 3's from 745 while playing. It's a distraction which means you cannot play the game as well as without it. Surely the game will be more fun and develop more if you take away the distraction so people can focus on sophisticated ambushes, complicated strategies and implementing their plans without fighting the game itself?
What "distraction" ??.... i've been playing 7 years and to change the interface now would be more of a distraction than leaving it alone.1.12 - being able to rally unfinished builds was a good feature , right click rally is an extremely annoying feature because a misclick and you have to reset your rally and i still use l-left click out of habit anyway.The latter thing has taught me that i usually fight new features more than any ones i have become used to since 1998.
Cuddly cute kitten and tenbagger make some good points, and I can now at least see that there is a decent argument against the changes.
However, it should be considered that the theoretical level of micro someone could get to is huge. Imagine muta harassing 5 areas simultaneously. So the game would not become pure strategy like go or chess, there would still be a large element of physical skill.
Imagine if SC2 was released with my changes (tweaked of course, and maybe without making spellcasting easier). Would you really still play this version, spending vast amounts of time hammering the keyboard when there's a version that lets you concentrate on strategy and micro?
Oh and could you briefly describle to me total anihilation kingdoms (cuddlykitten), as you make it sound interesting but I'd never really heard much about it. Does it have the same speed and ''1 slip and your fucked'' aspect of starcraft mixed with great strategy and balance? If so I will certainly give it a go.
I'd play the new version, and I'd probably be tired off it very, very quickly.
Thing is Tal, why would you muta harass in 5 different areas at the same time? 2 mutas in each area? That won't do any damage at all, and you only need 1 cannon to stop that. The game wouldn't suddenly magical be funnier just because you don't need to "hammer on your keyboard", which you incidently need anyway. Progamers don't peak with their APM when they are producing things, they peek when there are large important battles, and even the best gamers drop their macro when everything is on the line. So you'd still need speed.
And I don't need any time to focus on strategy, that's about the only thing I think about when I'm playing. I can micro/macro and think at the same time.
Also one problem is that I'm an average gamer today. I can macro near perfectly, and I can micro near perfectly. I can't do both at the same time however. I think it's pretty fun to do both, even when I lose because I have 600 minerals early game after intense zealot micro.
About TA:
No. Units were to easy to produce (Auto facts and very easy macro) so you basically had an endless stream.
Basically TA kingdom sucked balance oriantated and both games (Especially TA) sufferd from too good defensive structures. But with them disabled you simply started massing while building as many energy and metal producers as possible (nvm defending them, the opponent couldn't find them all anyway) and just massed units onto your opponent. There were preciously little micro except for your commander and your more expensive units, most of them which sucked, but a few were worthwhile.
TA was good because it was cool, feautured some really MASSIVE battles (like 100 units on each side with 20 aircraft flying support and artillery and shit) and some new innovative things. Unforgiving on the other hand it was not.
The higher the skill of macro for player A--->The higher the skill of micro required for player B The higher the skill of micro for player A--->The higher the skill of macro required for player B
Getting rid of macro means that the micro player will always win. There is skill and strategy required for these "useless chores" of macro. Why do you think that some players prefer one over the other? Maybe it fits their style, or they think that one is strategically superior in a given situation.
Plus, one of the most important aspects of strategy, timing, is found 99% with macro. That is why ILoveOov is so good, while, say, Pusan is not as successful. Sure, they both have incredible macro, but ILoveOov implements his troops differently with perfect timing and control.
On May 22 2005 11:58 Tal wrote: Cuddly cute kitten and tenbagger make some good points, and I can now at least see that there is a decent argument against the changes.
However, it should be considered that the theoretical level of micro someone could get to is huge. Imagine muta harassing 5 areas simultaneously. So the game would not become pure strategy like go or chess, there would still be a large element of physical skill.
Imagine if SC2 was released with my changes (tweaked of course, and maybe without making spellcasting easier). Would you really still play this version, spending vast amounts of time hammering the keyboard when there's a version that lets you concentrate on strategy and micro?
Oh and could you briefly describle to me total anihilation kingdoms (cuddlykitten), as you make it sound interesting but I'd never really heard much about it. Does it have the same speed and ''1 slip and your fucked'' aspect of starcraft mixed with great strategy and balance? If so I will certainly give it a go.
Tal, if blizzard released your version of the game, and people changed to it, I'd quit BW COMPLETELY. And this is from one of the absolutely most addicted people on this site.
Hammering your keyboard for 50 minutes is so fucking intense, SO FUCKING FUN. This: http://www.theidteam.com -> first rep, iD.FA vs VDP]TRAVIN Do you have any idea how satisfying winning something like that is?
TA: Kingdoms is a game where you go like: "ATTACK MOTHERFUCKREATTACK NO NOT WALK I SAID ATTACK, OH SHIT I JUST LOST 50 UNITS VS 1 TOWER FUCK FUCK FUCK".
On May 22 2005 11:58 Tal wrote: Cuddly cute kitten and tenbagger make some good points, and I can now at least see that there is a decent argument against the changes.
However, it should be considered that the theoretical level of micro someone could get to is huge. Imagine muta harassing 5 areas simultaneously. So the game would not become pure strategy like go or chess, there would still be a large element of physical skill.
Imagine if SC2 was released with my changes (tweaked of course, and maybe without making spellcasting easier). Would you really still play this version, spending vast amounts of time hammering the keyboard when there's a version that lets you concentrate on strategy and micro?
Oh and could you briefly describle to me total anihilation kingdoms (cuddlykitten), as you make it sound interesting but I'd never really heard much about it. Does it have the same speed and ''1 slip and your fucked'' aspect of starcraft mixed with great strategy and balance? If so I will certainly give it a go.
I've been out of town so I haven't read this entire thread... so I'll probably just be rephrasing what other people have already said, but- I think it's funny Tal asks for open-minded responses when his whole post and argument assumes a close-minded purpose to the game. I apologize to anyone who came onto a computer to escape reality but it isn't all developers' goals to make the computer respond to human thought with the least amount of ability required (ie by using "ease-of-use" features). To me his suggestions are like saying that in basketball we should make the rims bigger so there's less physical ability in making shots. Or better yet it's like saying we should give all athletes steroids so that we can "even the playing field" a bit more. Less talented athletes catch up to the talented athletes, while the talented athletes don't see significant improvements. The sports become easier to do. Obviously sports aren't altered like that, although they could be, because it'd be destroying a vital part of the game.
Now having said that, I actually laughed out loud when I read this:
On May 20 2005 17:40 Tal wrote: Oh, and while this is slightly off topic, why doesn't the game just start with 6 workers? No build except 4 pool would be affected, and the amount of time saved would be astronomical over time.
Cheers for reading, if you have intelligent well-reasoned stuff to say, would be appreciated.
If Tal can't see how starting the game with 6 workers instead of 4 would alter the game beyond "saving time" then I don't believe Tal is capable of utilizing someone's intelligent post. Because of this, I've only written for the entertainment of the TL.net community. Sorry Tal
Edit: As much as I didn't want to, I took some time to skim the thread. I see a basketball comparison has already been made. It seemed to me Tal argues for changing the focus of the game so that it's still as physically involving. The thing is that what skills the game demands is what defines the game. Going back to a comparison to sports- baseball, basketball, football (US), soccer (football), whatever. They all require different skills. Going back to the dribbling- you're a big fan of basketball but you think the game would be better if players didn't have to dribble like in American football, so that more focus could be put on other aspects of the game (cuz who really cares about their dribbling? they rarely mess it up and it's not exciting anyway). Well basketball fans who love the crazy crossovers and the ball handling of the best and the bad handling which takes down other players, well those fans will say you're ruining a big part of the game. If you don't like it then play football. That's what I say to Tal. If you don't like the game then I'm sorry nobody has made "your" game yet, but don't take away from what we have.
I think Blizzard made a smart decision by developing the Starcraft universe in another genre. If there was ever a "Starcraft: Brood Wars 2" then I think it should only be an update in graphics/sound/missions/whatever.
Macro'ing is not mundane to the majority of us. Macroing is fun. Likewise, I can say that Micro is mundane and just a bunch of pointless clicks. I mean, how fun is it to repeatedly right click 7 mutas? Maybe we should have auto marine-lurker micro, just so physically accurate players don't have some sort of unfair advantage over less mouse intense, more thinking players. I mean, I'm really smart, and have a great strategical mind, and I'm sure I can out-think Boxer TvZ, but the only reason Boxer's TvZ is better than mine is that he can kill a million lurkers with minimal losses, while I don't have the mouse speed for that. Put in auto-micro so I can do what Boxer can, while focusing on more "important" aspects of the game like timing/strategy/setting up ambushes/eating pizza.
Actually, I uploaded the entire Bo3 + 2 PvZ's to my west clan's page instead http://clancg.org/ -> Replays -> Others (progamers written next to it). cG.Stormy = Me cG.Greven= Travin
Btw, 1 gate kinda sucked on gaia I found out =P That was the first game we played on it, I thought the distance seemed gigantic so I was like 'hey, this should be safe'. Not.
The distance is pretty close to that of 12 vs 3 so 2 gate is really strong -_-!
whats with the revealed map with fog of war? What if you were playing in a maze-like map? It'd be too easy to find your opponent. You'd already know where alternate bases could be placed, and where it would be totally useless to scout. You'd save a lot of time, but the doubt makes the game challenging.
On May 24 2005 07:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: Actually, I uploaded the entire Bo3 + 2 PvZ's to my west clan's page instead http://clancg.org/ -> Replays -> Others (progamers written next to it). cG.Stormy = Me cG.Greven= Travin
Btw, 1 gate kinda sucked on gaia I found out =P That was the first game we played on it, I thought the distance seemed gigantic so I was like 'hey, this should be safe'. Not.
The distance is pretty close to that of 12 vs 3 so 2 gate is really strong -_-!
Thx a lot! Got the first two. But the bo3 TVZ can't be downloaded ATM, I reckon it's because of the "#" in the name of the files. It'd be great if u could fix it. Thx in advance.
You should be able to use tanks or similar types of units to destroy minerals, that would be kickass, you do a quick rush to destroy the other person's vespene or knock off a mineral field big advantage, and you can make sure he can't expand
On May 24 2005 11:16 Kazoo wrote: You should be able to use tanks or similar types of units to destroy minerals, that would be kickass, you do a quick rush to destroy the other person's vespene or knock off a mineral field big advantage, and you can make sure he can't expand
I was thinking about this recently after I played some warcraft 2. Having destructible resources would add a whole new level of complexity and strategies into the sc mix.
just wanna say something about the macro vs strategy when it comes to having too many buttons to push. For me I really enjoy the frantic hammering of all the different keys, it simply gets my attention much more and starts up the adrenaline. Especially when the game gets really hectic and you start fumbling more and more, thats when it gets more and more enjoyable in my mind But then again I do love stupid stupid games like just pushing the buttons as fast as possible in the right moment, like those music games etc :D As people have said giving the player in starcraft too many tools when it comes to macro kinda makes it non-starcraftish hehe :D thx
On May 21 2005 01:06 hasuwar wrote: You can't change a perfected game, stop trying
Stfu please...
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with him. SC is the best RTS ever made...period.
It's my fav game ever, and I don't feel it can be improved on. May as well make SC2 a whole new animal and save us a redundant title after a 20 year wait.
On May 24 2005 07:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: Actually, I uploaded the entire Bo3 + 2 PvZ's to my west clan's page instead http://clancg.org/ -> Replays -> Others (progamers written next to it). cG.Stormy = Me cG.Greven= Travin
Btw, 1 gate kinda sucked on gaia I found out =P That was the first game we played on it, I thought the distance seemed gigantic so I was like 'hey, this should be safe'. Not.
The distance is pretty close to that of 12 vs 3 so 2 gate is really strong -_-!
Thx a lot! Got the first two. But the bo3 TVZ can't be downloaded ATM, I reckon it's because of the "#" in the name of the files. It'd be great if u could fix it. Thx in advance.
we like hammering our keyboard, right? so im thinking maybe to make the game better, we need to add more "unnessecary keys/scenerio" into play.
1) I liked that shield idea, thought it was very creative. 2) How about now we have to press "L" every time marines shoot their ammo to reload? 3) Every landscape now takes effect not just ledges, under trees, ramps. For example in a tall grass zerglings does extra +1 dmg, in a foggy areas dark templar gains +1 armor due to its superior ability to hide 4) Above the zerg creeps, defiler does +1 second longer cloud
On May 24 2005 13:50 EntertainMe wrote: we like hammering our keyboard, right? so im thinking maybe to make the game better, we need to add more "unnessecary keys/scenerio" into play.
1) I liked that shield idea, thought it was very creative. 2) How about now we have to press "L" every time marines shoot their ammo to reload? 3) Every landscape now takes effect not just ledges, under trees, ramps. For example in a tall grass zerglings does extra +1 dmg, in a foggy areas dark templar gains +1 armor due to its superior ability to hide 4) Above the zerg creeps, defiler does +1 second longer cloud
lol this is fun
You don't get it: it's fine as it is. It's even more than fine, it's almost perfect. Sure it could probably be possible to better some minor aspect of the game, IMO, but the risk of fucking it up is much higher than the potential rewards.
So these threads are basically pointless (not much chance that Blizzard will take them account) and boring (same ideas being thrown other and other again, be it on balance or on gameplay changes).
I think SC2 would rock if maps were affected by weather that changed throughout the game (or chosen at start of game) so speed across ground and air could differ.
I didn't spend the time to read thru all 12 pages... but I read your original post. It sounds like the things you are proposing will limit the number of options available to the gamer. Less options = less room for creativity. Less creativity = less fun, and less ways to improve.
The fact that you have to watch the miners, its another level to the game, you've gotta keep microing while still pumping workers/soldiers. A newbie can't do it, while an average player can. This would blur the line between the skill levels. It'll make the game easier to master. And thats not good.
Next, how about if we add a script that auto micros for the average newbie? So they can pull off boxer-level moves just by hitting a single button.
Just to clarify my shield idea, the point is not exactly just to have "a shield", i don't care what the function be but the idea was to have pro gamers be able to for example beat 3 zelots with a single zealot if they use insane micro. Right now theres simply no 1 zelot vs 1 zelot micro, and the 5 zealot vs 5 zealot micro is not very complex(i don't belive the difference between nal ra and some A+ is really major...yes theres one but its not major).
Basicelly just bring the micro to a even higher level, not only pull back weak units behind and target weak units(talking of melee units) but also have either a "shield" function or a "dodge" function or even why not "aim" function that does more damage.
Im not sure how this would work in order to have the game balanced but im quite sure its possible to do.
My own sugestion would be simply have a hotkey "dodge" that only works when a single unit is selected. So you could have pro gamers mass press dodge everywhere while doing the old style of micro at the same time.
As long as blizz make sure the old micro is way more important than the new shield function(point is not to have pros focus everything on the shield and no longer have the old nice micro, but just have the earlier parts of micro require way more skill than before), i think it would make the gap between the nadas, oov, boxer way higher than the mumying/qoo)max and random A+ people.
Even think of having a counter button to dodge which would be "aim" and so you could have intense low ammount of unit micro between pro gamers. But as i said before its important that blizz would not put the old style of micro away. Just find some way to do this.
I like that in BW there is the tendency between micro or macro, but both are required to do well. In a late match with battles over multiple area of the map, choosing which battles to micro requires quick strategical thinking. Ex. microing to save the main base instead of microing to save far expansion. Normally, defending an attack is easier than going on the offensive. If micro was made more acessible due to easier macro, the game would be even more defensive because defensive micro would be even better.
Most of the changes that TAL mention will probably be implemented in Starcraft 2. Why? Because it is inevitable if we look at the trend of RTS today compared to those years ago. It is the inevitable future IMO. I will be disappointed when SC2 will killed off BW and knowing SC2 isn't a better *strategical* game. I hope the developers will understand why the #2 RTS is so far off from the #1 RTS.
Right click rally is great. It has improve my game a little bit after getting use to the switch from 'R' rally to right click rally. Some future changes I think are okay is auto-make-mine workers. It should be a toggle on and off. It would be mainly for people new to the game. In theory, if left on without paying attention, there would be 200 psi worth of workers provided that people did make the depot/overlord/pylon THEMSELVES.
There's only one thing that seriously needs to change. GET RID OF 640x480 SCREEN RESOLUTION. 1024x768 should be the minimum every monitor can display nowadays. I personally would really like to play on a 1600x1200 screen with nice resolution and a screen that shows about 30-50% more of the map.
how short minded some ppl here are. Nobody can really believe that Starcraft is the perfect game, for some of us or even many it might be but this has more to do with the community and a lot of unintentional "features" of SC but we shouldnt forget that SC has also many flaws.
I have to agree that there is a lot of unnecessary stuff which just distracts from the actual game. Making some stuff easier to use doesnt mean that u need less skill to master it or else u could say Dune 2 where u had to give every single unit a move/attack order would need more skill than SC.
If u make the interface easier it means on the other side there is more to place to integrate new stuff on which players can concentrate. Instead of sending ur probes to mine or press thousand times a button to produce units u can rather give the player new elements to use, more unit (special) abilities or generaly more units types. Not having to send ur probes all the time to mine means more time to do drops, to use ur units, doing actually strategic decissions instead of playing sim city. I even go so far and say that SC needs atm a lot less understanding of the units and strategics and that ur speed with the keyboard/mouse is a lot more important. Ofc the last one also needs to matter but i think the current balance isnt right. There are so many zerg players out there who dont do more than doing very few BO's and have no real understanding of the game mechanis but are still being able to compete with very creative (top) players. There need to be for sure limits to the level of which things are automized but SC has by far not reached them. SC has still a huge potential for more strategic depth but the only way to get it would be to give the player more time to use any new features and elements and this mean to reduce the amount of time a player has to spent with repetitive things. I really dont know what would be so bad about this as long as u want that the (strategic) decissions u make should be at least equally important to ur skills with the keyboard/mouse. If u just want a reaction test as game than this is actually a sad thing.
The point is, you guys all complain about how it'll leave room for "more strategy" and whatever - instead of bitching about balance changes and how macro is too (quite frankly, in your opinions) hard, why don't you spend the time just becoming better than the rest and being capable of doing the "boring" stuff and using your "obviously powerful" strategic mind to own us all?
Instead of comming out as a "I am so strategic. Just give me an "interface change" and I will be the next boxer" player, all you are coming out as is "I am like Boxer ;; in mind ;; but like ;; my macro so weak T________T"
Haha, and the cute part about the whole thing is that the people that support these changes are the same ones that argue that apm doesn't matter, with their main argument being "well...I've seen an 80 apm person beat a 200 apm person. so like. yeah.." The fact that they don't understand simple timing in that sometimes Protosses have to actually *gasp* stop workers to prepare for fast pushes?!?! And Terrans don't build nonstop scvs in early game TvZ. OMFG>
I don't believe that any of the people who post in favor of the balance changes have a deep enough knowledge of the game, but since "hammering the keys" is so important, if they can do that the same level as I can, then they have a good chance to win becuase of their "Boxer mind". Therefore, I will gladly play BO7 any of the players (I'd like to play Tal especially =), the Mr. start with 6 workers) that support the strategy changes. 4 games shouldn't take too much time.
With that said, if you're interested, PM me asap please.
On May 25 2005 07:47 FA_Leinad wrote: how short minded some ppl here are. Nobody can really believe that Starcraft is the perfect game, for some of us or even many it might be but this has more to do with the community and a lot of unintentional "features" of SC but we shouldnt forget that SC has also many flaws.
I have to agree that there is a lot of unnecessary stuff which just distracts from the actual game. Making some stuff easier to use doesnt mean that u need less skill to master it or else u could say Dune 2 where u had to give every single unit a move/attack order would need more skill than SC.
If u make the interface easier it means on the other side there is more to place to integrate new stuff on which players can concentrate. Instead of sending ur probes to mine or press thousand times a button to produce units u can rather give the player new elements to use, more unit (special) abilities or generaly more units types. Not having to send ur probes all the time to mine means more time to do drops, to use ur units, doing actually strategic decissions instead of playing sim city. I even go so far and say that SC needs atm a lot less understanding of the units and strategics and that ur speed with the keyboard/mouse is a lot more important. Ofc the last one also needs to matter but i think the current balance isnt right. There are so many zerg players out there who dont do more than doing very few BO's and have no real understanding of the game mechanis but are still being able to compete with very creative (top) players. There need to be for sure limits to the level of which things are automized but SC has by far not reached them. SC has still a huge potential for more strategic depth but the only way to get it would be to give the player more time to use any new features and elements and this mean to reduce the amount of time a player has to spent with repetitive things. I really dont know what would be so bad about this as long as u want that the (strategic) decissions u make should be at least equally important to ur skills with the keyboard/mouse. If u just want a reaction test as game than this is actually a sad thing.
I'm not gonna read through this because uh you are wrong. Top players can do all of this, and send workers. That's what makes them top players.
The fact that you need to send your workers to mine just adds one more element of stress. Seriously, we do not want to make the game EASIER to play.
In light of what people have said, I realise I'm not going to win this argument. Most of this community has an entirely different ideal for this game:
You want an intense rts game that combines strategy and tactics with the physical dexterity to keep pressing buttons or you are put at a disadvantage. I want an intense rts game that combines strategy and tactics with (minimal) phsyical dexterity to get the best out of your strategy.
If I outplay someone, I do not want to lose due to not having fast enough hands to keep up macro at home. I don't mind losing from a micro error (though the poor AI in dragoons is distressing), as this creates the possibility of good micro allowing you to make a comeback from a bad situation.
Yes I suck at micro and macro. And exalted, I wouldn't have a chance against you in a game. Firstly because of your ability to macro and micro better then me, and secondly because I would guess you can utterly outplay me too, judging from your posts in the strategy forum. People might not realise it, as most of this board seems to be veterans of the game (and hence so very conservative), but to get to the stage where you can make even remotely good split second decisions is very very hard. Every time I watch one of my replays I think ''shit, I should have attacked there/expanded there/ pumped troops there". I know what I should be doing (primarily thanks to this site and my own experience), but in a game under the stress of competetion, and without the hindsight a replay gives of what the other player is up to, it isn't that easy to do.
I've played about 1500 games I think, a lot of them when totally new or when playing with new players and hence not improving. Yes I'm new to the game. Yes I want it changed because I suck at macro (I suck at micro too, but I don't mind that). which. But not because I'm lazy. I'm one of the hardest working people I know. It's because I have no will to practice hitting the keyboard very fast in certain patterns. It is a time consuming skill to develop, but you are developing a virtually useless skill. The strategic principles of starcraft give all players a huge advantage while playing other strategy games, even ones not in real time, and are also mentally stimulating. The menial side of starcraft is different: a) doesn't aid touchtyping (I can touchtype fast but this hasn't prevented my macro from sucking). b) it's only really useful for starcraft and games with virtually identical control set ups. c) however much some people might profess to enjoy it, it is ultimately a distraction task that is boring unless you attain this 'fast hands' level of keyboard bashing, which is something that I personally would never find interesting. d) you run the risk of getting rsi (200 apm means hitting a ridiculous amount of keys)
However, in proposing these ideas to a community who has this 'skill', I realise I'm not getting anywhere. Why would you want to change a system that benefits you? You don't want the game to be easier to play, you want it to be difficult. Fair enough, I hope you continue to enjoy it.
But for me, and other new players, the commitment to effectively working out our fingers to be able to play a video game is too much...it's too far from fun. I'll still keep playing, but I guess never at a decent level, as what's the point of playing people who can beat you're strategies through their fast hands?
So yes I give up. But hopefully now people can see where I'm coming from without shouting stfu noob!!
First of all, we don't play starcraft to imporve our touch typing, or to get better at other games. We play starcraft because we enjoy it. We enjoy the intense speed of it, and the lack of a ceiling of skill.
The goal of games is NOT to abstract the gameplay away from the player, but you seem to think that any step which removes player control from the game is a step in the right direction. Incredible.
But for me, and other new players, the commitment to effectively working out our fingers to be able to play a video game is too much...it's too far from fun. I'll still keep playing, but I guess never at a decent level, as what's the point of playing people who can beat you're strategies through their fast hands?
The difficulty in getting good isn't in working out your fingers so they move fast enough, it's in working out your mind so you think fast enough. Let me tell you something: all of us can think up strategies when watching replays. You aren't alone there. The diffuculty is in keeping everything in your mind while you are playing. You don't need intense speed to macro sufficiently: the problem is in you forgetting to do it because you have so many things on your mind.
On May 21 2005 01:06 hasuwar wrote: You can't change a perfected game, stop trying
Stfu please...
He is right.
Perfectadjective
1. without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults
Actually that's what makes him wrong... thanks though :p
EDIT: In answer to the other guy, starcraft is my favorite rts game as well but to say it's perfect is just not right. There's a lot of things you could tweak (not big balance changes just very small modifications to unit costs to bring a potentially bigger variety of units into the game, 250/100 scout for example). That's not even counting the obvious shite like scarab AI and lots of the unit pathing!
On May 25 2005 12:25 ihatett wrote: The difficulty in getting good isn't in working out your fingers so they move fast enough, it's in working out your mind so you think fast enough. Let me tell you something: all of us can think up strategies when watching replays. You aren't alone there. The diffuculty is in keeping everything in your mind while you are playing. You don't need intense speed to macro sufficiently: the problem is in you forgetting to do it because you have so many things on your mind.
Spot on. I can keep my apm at about 250-300 during lulls in games, but its during the battles or during my drops or whatever, that my apm slips and I forget about my macro or building pylons etc. Being able to realise that there are more things you need to be doing at the same time is the key. You have the dexterity, its just the mental quickness, and the ability to not get bogged down with just one thing.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00018/00018507.jpg)
, i'm just that useless with terran 
