EPTWhat is impressive is being able to spread your templar so that they dont get roflowned by smart casted emp, while keeping them close enough to the front to storm on time.
Smart casting hurts the game - An in depth look - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
What is impressive is being able to spread your templar so that they dont get roflowned by smart casted emp, while keeping them close enough to the front to storm on time. | ||
|
Comprissent
United States314 Posts
| ||
|
Fiercegore
United States294 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:11 FabledIntegral wrote: Siege tank "smart firing" has nothing in common but name. It's a completely different, irrelevant topic to the discussion at hand. So it wouldn't be removed? I'm not sure how you answered the question. But if it wouldn't be removed, I think the general lower skill cap will still be there which is fine! Tanks have been balanced around having smart-firing, and I think that spells should just have to be balanced around smart-casting, and I think everything's very well balanced right now. If you were to change something as big as this, you have to make sure it doesn't make the game imbalanced because that would be a giant step backwards. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:02 enzym wrote: Blizzard doesn't have the same idea of what a good spell is as we do. They want their game to be accessible to many people, so they make execution easier and improve its immediate appearance, i.e. graphics and sound effects. The "amazing" in a good spell, for Blizzard, comes from 1) graphical effects and 2) is it fun to use this spell or not. While hardcore starcraft fans will easily agree that when observing a game all the emotion, the "awe" comes from the players, the tension of seeing how well they manage to place their units and spells, the suspension during the start of a battle until its end. Without smart casting the outcome is always unsure, it's a nailbiter. While with smart casting the outcome is more easily predictable. What matters most in this case is only whether the player is watching his units at all or not... it makes the game more shallow, not just skill cap wise for the players, but, what's more important, it makes it A LOT more shallow and uninteresting for observers as well. The outcome becomes too easily predictable and the difference between landing a spell and missing it has way less impact, because the spells needed to be nerfed because smart casting exists. Both make watching the game less exciting, it kills suspension and anticipation and it is quite possible that people will grow tired of it fast once they learn that there is nothing new to see anymore - that the employment of spells becomes generic. If what you say is in fact true, then RTS gameplay is degenerate and should not be used as an eSport. If the only way to make the game lively and interesting is to deliberately and systematically gimp the interface, making it harder to do something for no reason other than to make it harder, then there's something seriously wrong with this kind of gameplay. Interface is not and never should be a valid dimension of balance. No single ability or spell should ever be balanced by saddling it with a poor interface. And if that is the only way to make the game interesting for spectators, then the game is broken. It's like saying that the way to make Team Fortress 2 into a better competitive game is to reduce everyone's mouse sensitivity to its lowest level. Or make it so that in order to fire sticky bombs you have to click 3 different buttons in rapid succession. These ideas may in fact work at making it a better competitive game. But they're not good ideas, so however much they may actually help in some respects, they hurt the game. In any case, the main problem seems to be the amulet upgrade itself. Take that away, and HTs must be on the field for some time before throwing down Storms. Thus more opportunities to kill/EMP them, which cuts down on Storm spam. And that should make Storms more interesting by making them more rare. The tension will be on whether the non-Protoss can kill the HTs before they get into position to lay down the Storms. And personally, I like that tension more than whether the player can drop the Storms in the right place. | ||
|
Wochtulka
Czech Republic66 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
blanket storms or foxer dodging the fuck out of banelings? a well executed auto repair thor attack or the insane flank/target fire that does it in? | ||
|
Lucid90
Canada340 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:04 FabledIntegral wrote: By definition, yes it does. You can't even argue that. Decisions counting for more is irrelevant. Because in BW you can always make those same decisions while having to do the mechanics at the same time. hmm let's look at the effect of a lowered skill ceiling. When a game has a lowered skill ceiling lowered skill players win more often against higher skilled players, and when the game has a higher skill ceiling players with lower skill do worse than players with higher skill. But what exactly is skill? Is pressing buttons at 300 amp skill? Is controlling large amounts of terribly frustrating units with limited control resource that have bad ai (like controlling mass lings in bw) skill? I guess you can say that sc2 got rid of a lot aspects of this skill set, because you don't need 300+ apm to control a large army. But does this mean that lowered skill players will start winning agaisnt higher skilled players? This means that players who coasted on their control and APM in bw are going to have a harder time in sc2, and players who had a bad APM but good decision making are going to excel in sc2. This lowers the skill ceiling in controlling frustrating stupid units, but it doesn't lower the skill ceiling in the actual game. Things like timings, proper unit composition and scouting are just as relevant, even more so, because players can't rely as much on their APM to give them a leg up in the game. Look at chess for example. Do you need 300 APM to do well in chess? No. Is it really easy to move the units in chess? Sure. But it's a very difficult game because it focuses on a different skill than unit control. Sc2 is similar in that regard because it doesn't punish you so much for worse unit control, it just rewards you more for proper decision making. SC2 got rid of a lot of the requirements for high maintenance unit control, but it's still just as difficult to make decision in the game, which is why the overall skill ceiling is just as high. | ||
|
Gooey
United States944 Posts
Seriously, though, I never really played broodwar much, but it looks like 1 storm is the size of 4 sc2 storms and it kills tanks 1 in full duration. My storm can't even kill marauders. If you storm drop, you have to have 2 fkin templars to accomplish the same thing. Also, a downside of having them on one hotkey (here is to your "skill cap" complaint), is that one emp can fuck you over pretty badly if you do not properly spread them out and micro observers ahead of your army, so that you can position them correctly to hit key points. It's not so much no risk, all reward by being able to just slam them all to one hotkey and click a button in a line, clapping your hands like a little school child afterwards. I have seen plenty of impressive storm uses by pro players that make my jaw drop a little, like huk storming the edge of his army to create a storm forcefield from lings and broodlings against NesTea. Smart casting isn't such a bad thing. Accept the fact that starcraft 2 is not just brood war with a face lift, but another game. What is best for Brood War, might not be best for Starcraft 2. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:20 NicolBolas wrote: It's like saying that the way to make Team Fortress 2 into a better competitive game is to reduce everyone's mouse sensitivity to its lowest level. Or make it so that in order to fire sticky bombs you have to click 3 different buttons in rapid succession. These ideas may in fact work at making it a better competitive game. But they're not good ideas, so however much they may actually help in some respects, they hurt the game. i don't want to start the deadly spiral of terrible analogies but imagine if the solly had a 8 rocket mag instead of 4. it's more fun and accessible for pubs to play with because they don't have to manage rockets but the downside to this is that rocket damage gets nerfed and now they do 50 damage a pop. imagine how much more spammy that would make the solly and how less critical it would be to manage rockets. | ||
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
Like it says in the OP, we'd all love the return of the Science Vessel and Defiler... but how the hell would you make them balanced? 50% miss rate under swarm? nonononon, that just makes the spell less cool. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:19 Fiercegore wrote: So it wouldn't be removed? I'm not sure how you answered the question. But if it wouldn't be removed, I think the general lower skill cap will still be there which is fine! Tanks have been balanced around having smart-firing, and I think that spells should just have to be balanced around smart-casting, and I think everything's very well balanced right now. If you were to change something as big as this, you have to make sure it doesn't make the game imbalanced because that would be a giant step backwards. Why would I answer your question when it's an entirely different discussion? Should we also talk about the strength of the Phoenix moving shot in this topic? Or Roach movement speed while burrowed? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:07 ArvickHero wrote: I think the best of both world would be to introduce a "delay" between each spell if you casted spells consecutively using the smartcast feature. So if you spammed storm across an army using smart cast, instead of the storms all appearing instantly, each storm would be casted w/ a second (or two) delay. We all know it would come to this. This guy is a very smart man and I as well would like to see some sort of diminishing returns for using the feature that way everyone is happy. As Blizzard said, they're trying to find a resolution to PvT late game. I think something like a cooldown on storm might work if the player tries to use smartcast from group X/tab instead of shift selecting each unit from group XY to cast. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
However, this will never change as it would push away the casual crowd. It does feel like beating a dead horse with bringing a beta topic to life again.. | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:19 Comprissent wrote: No smartcasting in BW was just a limitation. You can make the exact same argument for wanting to only be able to select 16 units at one time like in BW. . You don't know what you are talking about. It was 12 buddy. | ||
|
lyAsakura
United States1414 Posts
On December 29 2010 10:28 farseerdk wrote: For me, smartcasting itself isn't too much of an issue, but 80 damage storms, no irradiate/plague/darkswarm is. Like it says in the OP, we'd all love the return of the Science Vessel and Defiler... but how the hell would you make them balanced? 50% miss rate under swarm? nonononon, that just makes the spell less cool. Pretty dumb how the high templar is the only one of the three blatantly overpowered spellcasters to be still in the game, but I do guess that storm really is the only one of the three that isn't completely gamebreaking in SC2. It's ridiculous how people say that fast clicking is not impressive. Fast clicking makes the feat beyond impressive and the fact that any old low diamond player can't do what the pros do makes it entertaining and much more fun to watch then "oh i'd rather have them work on strategy then waste apm spamming". I love how every single one of these SC2 guys are implying that BW had no strategy, when it was one of the most strategy rich games ever made despite it being On December 29 2010 10:19 Comprissent wrote:"a limitation." | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
Games can exist on either end. Look at Supreme Commander for the extreme of no chores - literally every strategic decision is one action (with the exception of reclaiming debris). You can create building templates (which are basically an automated build order), set buildings to auto-produce units in a particular order, set very complex rally and patrol points, etc. It is a valid game. Starcraft 1 I would put at the other end of the spectrum. Players needed probably about 150apm of JUST chores in the late game in order to stay on top of everything. That's without unit micro, without any strategic decision or acts of aggression or defense. It's just keeping up with all your chores. Starcraft 2 is in the middle. It has less macro chores and less micro chores than SC1, but more than Supcom. That's the direction Blizzard wanted to go, it's the direction they went, and it's still a valid game. Arguments to restore chores are simply arguments to make SC2 more like SC1. Yes, eliminating the chores makes the game more different than SC1, but that's the point. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
| ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
BW is different to SC2 and more senesible due to advanced technology that can be used does it show skill to select each HT and storm with them yes, is it a practical sensible solution no it would be most frustrating to the majority of players. Also by implmenting things such as smart casting it frees up apm to do other things and allows the game to evolve more naturally by that i mean focused on tactics, strategy, resource managment and unit composition rather than the mechanical skill of the game At end of the day i see that there is more skill in the things i have listed above than mechanical skill as one takes good decision making, and thought the other just takes alot of practise which serves to limit the spread of the game there is a reasons why BW was only big in Korea (finally QQ noob XD XD XD) | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
Really, why drive a car either? Running is far better. | ||
| ||
