|
On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible.
The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong.
-Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building.
-Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle.
-Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1.
The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army.
And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
I don't know why people cannot accept that a game can be with more than one genre.
Most of actions games have overlap with lots of genre.
Uncharted has TPS, action-adventure, puzzle solving And platform.
Interesting micro interactions can also stems from a player's decision on when to build how many what units as well
MOBA micro interaction is fun, but it is not going to apply to RTS because you control more than one unit.
But yes, Big J is right. SC2 is not it, every thing about the game right now is not going to work well with auto queue.
|
Bisutopia19268 Posts
On April 23 2015 23:36 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible. The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong. -Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building. -Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle. -Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1. The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army. And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
You are way more screwed if your buildings are auto-queuing the wrong composition of units.
Terran Example:
I forgot to turn of my tank auto-queue after the factory made two and now I have 4 when I needed that for vikings.
Protoss Example:
My warpgate auto-queue is warping in units at my desired pylon. Pylon is killed without me noticing because I'm newb. Warpin queue stops and I don't have the units I expected to have a minute later.
Zerg Example:
Oh shit I'm out of larva because I didn't turn drone auto-queue off. I can't make units to defend.
The idea here is not thought through. Even if you want auto-queuing you can't have it. It would make things way worse and stressful.
|
On April 23 2015 23:50 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre? I don't know why people cannot accept that a game can be with more than one genre. Most of actions games have overlap with lots of genre. Uncharted has TPS, action-adventure, puzzle solving And platform. Interesting micro interactions can also stems from a player's decision on when to build how many what units as well MOBA micro interaction is fun, but it is not going to apply to RTS because you control more than one unit.
Obviously genres don't have hard boundaries and often overlap, but there is in the vast majority of games a "dominant" genre. That a RPG has strategical elements in it doesn't make it a RTS, just a RPG with RTS elements, much like WC3 having RPG elements doesn't make it a RPG but a RTS with RPG elements.
|
This is a terrible idea. Why would you want to take the skill out of an E-sport? It's detrimental to the scene and will kill the interest of so many people. Those other RTS' s have those features because they aren't competitive RTS' s. You'll notice most of those games also have minimal micro. They aren't meant to be competitive. SC2 is.
|
I definitely think something like this will be the future of rts, but it isn't starcraft and most people (i would imagine) who love starcraft NOW would hate starcraft with that idea.
I sure would.
|
Yes and you should add :
- Auto split
- Auto worker build
- Auto spells
- Auto build that counter what the autoqueue of the other player is building
- Auto game pilot so you can watch some stuff while playing.
and of course
- Auto win.
EDIT : I FORGOT ! Micro battles should be QTE
|
And while you are at it, make everything automatic so we watch cpus fighting :D.
|
On April 23 2015 23:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:11 Hider wrote:On April 23 2015 20:24 Big J wrote:
I love the idea. But I can't see it working in SC2, because the game was never designed around that. Think about larva or warpgates.
A game with such a core production feature needs the production - and units and strategies - to be designed around that feature. This is not the case with SC2. Agree with this. There is imo no doubt that the future of the RTS genere is to get rid of the macro-production/pointless extra click-part of the genre, and focus more on interesting micro interactions (which is where most "casual-friendly" RTS's sucks). But can they be called "RTS" then? Additionally, don't "interesting micro interactions" call for MOBA-like micro, which would bring us even further from the "RTS" genre?
RTS is a very large genre and its not a necesity that macro is a part of it. It makes sense to think of two subcategoires to RTS:
(1) Action-RTS
(2) Macro-oriented RTS
Action-RTS can be further divided into two sub-sub cateogires.
(1) MOBA's
(2) A-RTS with each player controlling multiple units.
Thus, it is the latter that I believe is extremely underexplored atm. I know other companies have experiemnted with it, but those game developers have had no idea how to create interesting interactions and generally the speed of those games have been way too low.
|
SupCom gives you the ability to do that but it uses a lot more factories to the point where it would be impossible to manage yourself, I don't think that would be a good idea in sc2 where you have maybe 6-8 production buildings active for most of the game.
|
On April 23 2015 23:36 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:58 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2015 15:52 HewTheTitan wrote:It will just dumb down the game You're saying it requires intelligence and wit to press a sequence of keys in a practiced way? Deciding how to spend your actions per minute and attention requires intelligence and efficient thinking If you have enough actions to do everything, then there is no decision to be made, and the game is dumbed down, requiring less thinking and less decision making. Good macro also takes skill. StarCraft (and I assume StarCraft 2 as well) is a game of intelligence and skill. And most importantly, it is a game in which intelligence meets skill and works in unison. That's what makes it unique and different from other games. It is not just one of the two, or even both at the same time. It is a fusion of both which creates something new and greater than the sum of its parts. There was once a rookie Terran who's name I can't remember, who played against Jaedong. He had two opportunities to win, but both times, he failed, because he focused on keeping his money low. He should have let his money skyrocket, to micro that vulture in Jaedong's base against unupgraded slowlings. Then his marine and medic follow up (which was also mismicroed, but could have won the game) would certainly have destroyed Jaedong. He had a lot of skill, but his decision making faltered. He should have focused more on micro and less on macro. WIth automated production, he wouldn't have had to choose. But it's not as simple as choosing one or the other. You can choose most of one and a little of the other, or split them half in half. And with smart planning, you can get more out of the same amount of actions. 250 apm with bad planning is not equal to 250 apm with good planning. If you can look in to the future, you can predict when you'll be able to go back and macro without losing anything on the micro front, and macro at such times. You can even tactically force such situations. A very simple example is if you want to move your mutalisks from one base to an other. During that time, you don't have to control your mutalisks, so you are free to macro. If you are actively harassing a Terran base, you may have to retreat with your mutalisks to place an extra hatchey. But this may not be worth it if you're doing extreme damage. You have to judge whether the damage that can be done is greater than the gain of placing an extra hatchery as fast as possible. The thing is, Starcraft had such different mechanics from Starcraft 2 that I don't know if that kind of strategic decision making is applicable anymore. Let's consider what that same Terran player would have to do in Starcraft 2 to keep his money low as opposed to continue the micro against Jaedong. -Make new buildings. Auto-queue wouldn't affect this in any way b/c in both games you have to turn away from the fight to place down the building. -Make new units. In SC1 you had to turn away and manually select each building in order to produce the unit. In SC2, with Multiple Building Selection, you can just hit "5" or whatever hotkey you've designated for your barracks and queue your production within a second, all the while keeping your screen focused on the battle. -Research upgrades. Again, with MBS the amount of time required for such actions is significantly reduced in SC2 compared to SC1. The other difference between SC1 and SC2 is that in SC2, battles usually happen a lot faster, and the time you have to turn the battle around through good unit control is a lot smaller. For most players (at least up to gold league) you don't have enough time to make that decision between unit control and macro; if you don't take that extra second to dodge those Banelings, or that Widow Mine, or those Colossus pot-shots, you're screwed. In LOTV there's even more emphasis on unit control. So it's even more punishing to turn focus away from your army. And like I said before, there's still a ton of mechanical aspects to the game besides queuing units. Building placement, hotkeys, research/expansion timings, resource banking - I think SC2 will still be plenty mechanically challenging with auto-queuing.
When you only have four production buildings and two groups of units, you have each building on a hotkey, so that you can look at your army while controlling your units. This means that, just like in SC2, you only have to return the vision to your base to place new buildings. When the Terran rookie got a vulture in to Jaedong's undefended base (apart from six slowlings) it was just like having hellions inside a Zerg base (except that SCV's needed to be manually placed on minerals) - everything except for building placement could be done from the vision of the vulture.
Choosing where to put ones attention is just as important before something happens. It's not just about making a choice fast after one is presented with a situation. I lose a lot because my army is moving while I'm macroing, and I run in to an enemy army. So battles happening quickly doesn't matter - I should have been looking at the army before it ran in to the enemy. SC2 has banelings and widow mines, BW has mines, siege tanks, and lurkers. Not to mention TvZ in general. If you're not ready for the ultralisk a move with scourge vs your vessels, then your marines will die under dark swarm. You need to be ready in advance.
Everything that I mentioned applies to SC2, but parts of it are much easier, so it's just not at the same level as SC1. But it's still there, and I don't see how it being less than BW means that it should be removed all together. It is still a factor. I know this because I played SC2 and was GM at it for 2010 - 2012. I know that the game has changed strategically, but I know that the fundamentals are still the same.
|
No, please. Automated tasks should not be present in SC2.
|
In addition to all the other objections against automation, this just doesn't make any sense. You make a ton of decisions in building units that you can only make if you control unit building on an individual action basis. Having automated production would be inferior to doing it "by hand" even if you could implement it because you'd constantly be building the wrong things at the wrong time without your input.
|
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
|
On April 24 2015 01:50 Haukinger wrote:
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
It does make the game easier, but hopefully it also introduces new high-level decision/judgement-based tasks that are more fun to do and watch.
In principle I agree with you though, automate everything that can be. That doesn't work for production though because it's very decision oriented.
|
On April 24 2015 01:50 Haukinger wrote:
Please automate everything that can be automated - it doesn't make the game easier, but it reduces the brainless part. It should also make the game more interesting for viewers, as the players can spend their apm on things that actually do stuff. If you don't actually play at a decent level, as a viewer you can't appreciate stuff like perfects injects or splits anyway... you just keep wondering why those marines stand clumped when banelings roll in, when they could easily spread out or run away.
How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff?
You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices  ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
Terran Example:
I forgot to turn of my tank auto-queue after the factory made two and now I have 4 when I needed that for vikings.
Protoss Example:
My warpgate auto-queue is warping in units at my desired pylon. Pylon is killed without me noticing because I'm newb. Warpin queue stops and I don't have the units I expected to have a minute later.
Zerg Example:
Oh shit I'm out of larva because I didn't turn drone auto-queue off. I can't make units to defend.
The idea here is not thought through. Even if you want auto-queuing you can't have it. It would make things way worse and stressful.
This is a good point. It would introduce a different kind of real time related difficulty, giving people who want "pure strategy" and no speed something new to complain about
|
as an option for custom games sure. as an actual feature on ladder games I'd prefer not
|
shift key? Queue on units not enough? It doesnt take long to get the mins for anything really after 3 mins to if u remember you can add an already shifted command, just float that money otherwise until it starts, i do this all time with gas and mins for when i want muta, i float mins along side gas while still; building mineral things but still equaling gas and larva needed
The idea of queing units is a bit silly because lets say u really need 2 marines and u have a depot auto, well ur going to lose the game if the que runs up and the depot is made
I dont think sc is ever ready for something which automates the game. The day that comes u can expect massive drop in players. We play this game because it isnt press f to pay respects
|
Dont really see how this would work out for protoss due to warp ins.
And it would be a buff for terran players if it lets players focus more on dropping etc cos well they do the most dropping >.>.
|
On April 24 2015 01:58 vOdToasT wrote:How is managing a third resource brainless? And how is making decisions that have different outcomes not actually doing stuff? You can say that you don't like the choices that apm management creates, and then I can say that I do like it, and we can end the discussion there. (I'm better off though, because StarCraft has those choices ). But don't act as if it's purely mechanical. That either shows ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
Example: splitting marines. repeatedly boxing and moving those guys around is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (anyone remember c&c? that one had a hotkey for split)
Example: inject. cycling each of your bases every 40 seconds, selecting a queen, selecting inject, clicking on the hatch is actually brainless, and could easily be automated (toggle auto-inject on those queens)
Of course, it is an actual decision which queen should inject, but that decision isn't removed by giving the player the option to tell a queen to inject until further notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
