|
On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math  On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me?
The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI.
In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something.
What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily.
So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid.
|
On July 14 2011 01:50 -Frog- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:30 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess. No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy. I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy. Why do we need players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy? Maybe saying we "need" players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy was a poor way to phrase it. I "think" that's how the game should be because it's what makes Starcraft a different genre of game from Checkers. The added mechanical skill required to play Starcraft makes it fun to watch and - for me at least - fun to play. There's not much strategy in blinking back damaged stalkers but it is highly entertaining to watch when done well. Another thing to consider is that completely new and innovative strategies that win a game outright with how unique and powerful they are are incredibly rare. How often do you see a game won because someone did something people have never ever seen before and win because of it? Of course I can think of examples (Nestea using spine crawlers + OL creep to kill a toss expansion defended only with cannons) but after that strategy has been revealed it is now available for anyone to copy. What separates the truly great players in a real time strategy game like Starcraft 2 is the ability to execute and multitask a strategy better than anyone else.
What separates starcraft from checkers is that starcraft is real time and checkers is turn based.
But having rhythm and timing mechanics is not what makes a real time strategy game. For example if you had to play a level of guitar hero before you could move in checkers, and failure to complete the level means you miss your turn, that would add in repetitive clicking mechanics. But it wouldn't be a real time strategy game, it would still be turn based.
Real time strategy is simply strategy which takes place in real time. Sending your workers to mine is not a strategy, it's a necessity that even a baby could figure out.
|
On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me? The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI. In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something. What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily. So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid.
Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way".
Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks
I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings.
And no. My argument is not invalid 
"If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily."
Is actually a very nice point.
If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing
So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y?
"Automining is good but other automatic processes are bad" sounds fun
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2011 02:03 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me? The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI. In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something. What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily. So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid. Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way". Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings. And no. My argument is not invalid "If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily." Is actually a very nice point. If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y? "Automining is good but other automatic processes are bad" sounds fun
I stopped trying to reason with people in this thread a while ago. I think it all started because people wanted to go off topic and start talking about auto-mining for some reason -_-'.
|
On July 14 2011 02:03 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me? The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI. In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something. What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily. So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid. Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way". Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings. And no. My argument is not invalid "If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily." Is actually a very nice point. If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y?
Oh wow, smiley punctuation. I can see I am arguing with a mental heavyweight.
What if you are dropping and your marines are backed into a corner. Trying to fan out because your units see a baneling lets lings get great surface area and gets everything killed . Picking up is the best option probably.
Guess what, if your units make that decision for you that is artificial intelligence. If they don't, you are going to die to people who know how to deal with the predictable unit behaviour.
With automining the player has made the decision by rallying them to where he wants them to mine. The units are not making any decision on their own.
|
Anyways I am done here. I can see people have decided to try and conflate decision making (when and where to blink, when and where to kite) with interface impediments (rally workers to mine, show worker count).
This is because interface impediments are indefensible in a strategy game. Without trying to conflate them with decision making they have no leg to stand on.
|
On July 14 2011 02:09 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:03 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me? The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI. In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something. What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily. So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid. Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way". Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings. And no. My argument is not invalid "If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily." Is actually a very nice point. If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y? Oh wow, smiley punctuation. I can see I am arguing with a mental heavyweight. What if you are dropping and your marines are backed into a corner. Trying to fan out because your units see a baneling lets lings get great surface area and gets everything killed . Picking up is the best option probably. Guess what, if your units make that decision for you that is artificial intelligence. If they don't, you are going to die to people who know how to deal with the predictable unit behaviour. With automining the player has made the decision by rallying them to where he wants them to mine. The units are not making any decision on their own.
Oh now we start the adhominem attacks. "A mental heavyweight"
Adding an option to retreat to the medivac in a drop-baneling situation isnt really that hard.
"When you're backed in a corner - go up in the medivac". Kinda obvious - no strategic mastermind needed.
And when you say you make the decision with rallying. Comman man! We're talking about interface improvements here! Your whole point was "we need more interface improvements, like worker count, so we can do more strategic decisions and not deal with stupid mechanics!"
Option:
"Be safe" - try to kite as much as possible (for the banshees)
"Target your enemy" - attack units which you gain +dmg from. Like an immortal targeting stalkers not zealots.
On July 14 2011 02:12 Gurblechev wrote:
Anyways I am done here. I can see people have decided to try and conflate decision making (when and where to blink, when and where to kite) with interface impediments (rally workers to mine, show worker count).
This is because interface impediments are indefensible in a strategy game. Without trying to conflate them with decision making they have no leg to stand on.
You justified your interface improvements with saying "it should be about making strategic decisions and remove mechanics".
I just followed your logic & argument further.
But well - bye I'd go as well if I would start to disagree with my initial argument
|
On July 14 2011 02:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:09 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 02:03 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:53 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:45 Zocat wrote:On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition. Where did I mention AI? Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game. How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!". Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X". I'm only limited by my poor multitasking. I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible. It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me? The Automaton 2000 videos are done in a controlled environment and would not work so well in an actual game. For example marines perfectly kiting banelings may be impressive but if they back away from the battle and fan out it could leave other units vulnerable or result in your marines getting easily cleaned up one at a time by a group of roaches. If they are deciding which direction to kite based on the situation, that is AI. In a strategy game it is more important to be able to make intelligent decisions based on the situation than to just have a blind dumb reaction to something. What you seem to be referring to is artificial intelligence. If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily. So either your idea would result in you dying because you aren't paying attention to your units, or your idea is that you should have a sophisticated artificial intelligence making decisions for you based on the circumstances. Either way your argument is invalid. Automaton maximizes the distance between the unit and the enemy units. They always run the "safe way". Marines backing away from a battle to avoid banelings (while the siege tanks stay) is something people see in a lot of progames. As soon as the banelings are targeted down the marines return and clean up the mutas fireing at the siege tanks I dont really see how you want to exploit it with roaches? Either a lot of banelings run with the roaches (which leads to splitting being the best option) or the marines target down the banelings. And no. My argument is not invalid "If units weren't making decisions based on the situation then your unmanaged attacks would get obliterated very easily." Is actually a very nice point. If units werent making decisions based on the situation then workers not being told to mine would just stand around doing nothing So why should my units do something without my interaction in situation X but shouldnt do something without my interaction in situation Y? Oh wow, smiley punctuation. I can see I am arguing with a mental heavyweight. What if you are dropping and your marines are backed into a corner. Trying to fan out because your units see a baneling lets lings get great surface area and gets everything killed . Picking up is the best option probably. Guess what, if your units make that decision for you that is artificial intelligence. If they don't, you are going to die to people who know how to deal with the predictable unit behaviour. With automining the player has made the decision by rallying them to where he wants them to mine. The units are not making any decision on their own. Oh now we start the adhominem attacks. "A mental heavyweight" Adding an option to retreat to the medivac in a drop-baneling situation isnt really that hard. "When you're backed in a corner - go up in the medivac". Kinda obvious - no strategic mastermind needed. And when you say you make the decision with rallying. Comman man! We're talking about interface improvements here! Your whole point was "we need more interface improvements, like worker count, so we can do more strategic decisions and not deal with stupid mechanics!" Option: "Be safe" - try to kite as much as possible (for the banshees) "Target your enemy" - attack units which you gain +dmg from. Like an immortal targeting stalkers not zealots. Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:12 Gurblechev wrote:
Anyways I am done here. I can see people have decided to try and conflate decision making (when and where to blink, when and where to kite) with interface impediments (rally workers to mine, show worker count).
This is because interface impediments are indefensible in a strategy game. Without trying to conflate them with decision making they have no leg to stand on. You justified your interface improvements with saying "it should be about making strategic decisions and remove mechanics". I just followed your logic & argument further. But well - bye
That's not what ad hominem means. I never suggested you are wrong because you use smileys. It was just an offhanded insult. Read up on the ad hominem fallacy fallacy (what you have done):
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
You are wrong because your argument is invalid. Blindly kiting will get you killed by anyone who knows how units behave (flanks, herding you into traps). Blindly fanning out upon seeing a baneling will get you killed (a couple banelings with a lot of zerglings giving excellent surface area), etc. Without any intelligence behind these actions, either artificial intelligence or human intelligence, they are not actually beneficial.
So either you are dreaming about sophisticated artificial intelligence which would react differently based on the situation, which is drastically different from interface improvements. Or your examples would simply shift micro to other aspects. Like manually trying to prevent your units from kiting in a direction they shouldn't, and therefore would not significantly change the game at all. Either way your argument is invalid and you couldn't be more wrong.
|
On July 14 2011 02:16 Zocat wrote:
I just followed your logic & argument further.
Oh and by the way this is called a straw man. Another fallacy you have committed.
I never in any way at all suggested that units should have sophisticated AI that makes decisions for you.
|
No worker count... apm required to be competitive is already half (being generous here-) of what it was in bw. now u can sit back and watch as 4 shift-clicked medivacs drop at 4 different locations.
i want the game to remain difficult. that's the value in playing and watching, and what allows players to stand out from others.
|
On July 14 2011 02:37 _Darwin_ wrote:
No worker count... apm required to be competitive is already half (being generous here-) of what it was in bw. now u can sit back and watch as 4 shift-clicked medivacs drop at 4 different locations.
i want the game to remain difficult. that's the value in playing and watching, and what allows players to stand out from others.
Is chess difficult? Can you beat a chess grandmaster because apm is irrelevant?
Difficulty should come from the opponent, not the interface. That is what makes a good strategy game.
|
why do people keep suggesting the game get easier when it is already easier then bw, go play world of warcraft if you want everything to be simple
|
On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.
This. Adding worker count into the game would make it even more noob friendly... It's is already much more easier to play compared to SC:BW. Do not need even make it more easier, please.
|
On July 13 2011 23:11 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 23:05 Gosi wrote:
This is so dumb. Why do people wanna dumb things down even more? I agree with meRz, there is ingame clock, automining,mbs, no max unit selection and you even have a message telling you when you can spawn larvae, mules and chronoboost again (!!!). It's like the players that aint that good wanna cut corners just because they can't stand that some players are dedicated to Starcraft and kows alot about all kinds of stuff.
Imagine if Blizzard allowed modding, all kinds of noob mods would be out and it would be horrible. Everyone who plays HoN knows what im talking about. I would call interface impediments like no auto mining and no multiple building selection "dumbing the game down", because it takes away aspects based on intelligence (strategy) and gives weight to practiced repetition. I personally prefer starcraft be somewhat like a real time chess, rather than a glorified Guitar Hero or DDR.
Why cant it be GH Chess? Wouldnt it take more skill to do both at the same time?
|
On July 14 2011 02:39 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:37 _Darwin_ wrote:
No worker count... apm required to be competitive is already half (being generous here-) of what it was in bw. now u can sit back and watch as 4 shift-clicked medivacs drop at 4 different locations.
i want the game to remain difficult. that's the value in playing and watching, and what allows players to stand out from others. Is chess difficult? Can you beat a chess grandmaster because apm is irrelevant? Difficulty should come from the opponent, not the interface. That is what makes a good strategy game.
starcraft 2 is a real time strategy game
ya chess is difficult
|
On July 14 2011 02:39 mewby wrote:
why do people keep suggesting the game get easier when it is already easier then bw, go play world of warcraft if you want everything to be simple
On July 14 2011 02:39 arew wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more. This. Adding worker count into the game would make it even more noob friendly... It's is already much more easier to play compared to SC:BW. Do not need even make it more easier, please.
It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.
|
Ooh ooh, and how bout Blizz also lets you just press a button to make workers continuously until you have the perfect number... You'll never have to macro again!
But seriously, stop giving them ideas to make the game even easier.
|
You cant tell how many you have roughly at a glance?
|
On July 14 2011 02:45 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:39 mewby wrote:
why do people keep suggesting the game get easier when it is already easier then bw, go play world of warcraft if you want everything to be simple Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:39 arew wrote:On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more. This. Adding worker count into the game would make it even more noob friendly... It's is already much more easier to play compared to SC:BW. Do not need even make it more easier, please. It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.
Did you even play bw competitvely? Prove to me right now that sc2 has more strategy than bw.
|
On July 14 2011 02:45 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:39 mewby wrote:
why do people keep suggesting the game get easier when it is already easier then bw, go play world of warcraft if you want everything to be simple Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:39 arew wrote:On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more. This. Adding worker count into the game would make it even more noob friendly... It's is already much more easier to play compared to SC:BW. Do not need even make it more easier, please. It's actually more difficult than brood war as it involves more strategy and less repetitive clicking. Even an artificial intelligence can do repetitive clicking.
Yet AI's still not that great in BW for some reason. No AI's beating A ranked players. You obv know how difficult BW is, I'd love to see you play Flash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
