|
On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not."
Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish.
|
On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 03:59 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On April 24 2015 02:46 spinesheath wrote:
Anyone saying this is a bad idea should look back at SCBW and all the people crying about SC2 introducing rally to minerals, multi building selection, arbitrarily large control groups and all that stuff. The same arguments, the same tears.
SC2's macro was massively simplified compared to SCBW, this idea is just a tiny step in the same direction. That's nonsense. Take for example multiple building selection; that's my idea of a beneficial change (though some people may disagree even with this), as it is simply making the process of building units more streamlined, removing basically a multitasking dump, allowing players to focus on more important things. This change doesn't do any such thing. In fact adding auto-queue is openly harmful to newer players, as it doesn't give them the opportunity to play reactively, steals their minerals when they may need them, and gives them the bad habit of relying on auto-queue in general. And of course this change doesn't work for Protoss or Zerg. The key difference is that rallying to a mineral patch or multiple building selection are things that a top player will use, while using auto-queue will actively harm your game. You're missing my point. I'm not even arguing that it's a good idea. People strongly opposed Bizzard's simplification of mechanics going from SCBW to SC2. Now they wouldn't want to go back. Yet the moment someone suggests a simplification of mechanics, they are back to opposing. It doesn't really matter if the idea is particularly well thought out, people straight up oppose it. The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not." Mostly I'm just pointing out that people still have the same elitist view of playing a "mechanically hard game". Even though this mechanical difficulty might not even be of importance for the quality of the game.
No. It is a Real Time Strategy game. For me personally that means that you do NOT have enough time to do all the actions you want to do in the game because your time is limited and part of your strategy and playstyle should be how you invest the time available to you and setting priorities. REAL TIME STRATEGY. It isnt only about mechanical difficulty. If you dont want time in a strategy game, play a roundbased game please.
Rant on:
Also how is it exciting to watch if there is an autosplit button? Everyone then can do it. There are plenty of games already that have these things, if people want to play these games they should but leave Starcraft to the people who dont.
So far the only argument is: "oh my god I cant do the same stuff as progames can who practice 8 hours a day, thats stupid". And to be honest that is a retarded statement in itself. If a gold is facing another gold, there shouldnt be a problem because they are too slow to micro.
TLDR; l2p
On April 23 2015 15:11 GiveMeCake wrote:
determining who the true champions are.
Also lol on this
|
So we basically want a nexus wars on a normal melee map?
That doesn't sound fun at all, at least to me (and i would think most sc2 people think the same)
|
On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition.
On April 24 2015 04:51 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Also how is it exciting to watch if there is an autosplit button multi building selection? Everyone then can do it. There are plenty of games already that have these things, if people want to play these games they should but leave Starcraft to the people who dont.
So far the only argument is: "oh my god I cant do the same stuff as progames can who practice 8 14 hours a day, thats stupid". And to be honest that is a retarded statement in itself. If a gold ICCup D- is facing another gold ICCup D-, there shouldnt be a problem because they are too slow to micro.
TLDR; l2p
I shifted that post back a few years. Maybe people didn't write TLDR; back then.
|
People fought worker rallies to the death, and it ended up doing nothing harmful to gameplay.
No other RTS fanbase holds menial tasks in such high regard. It doesn't make any sense. It's not what makes starcraft good.
|
On April 24 2015 04:56 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish. Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition.
Ah, never mind then. SC2 players are champions in desiring more of what hurt the game in the first place.
|
On April 24 2015 05:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:56 spinesheath wrote:On April 24 2015 04:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 24 2015 04:33 spinesheath wrote:
The correct reaction would be "That's a reasonable proposition, but not quite practical yet. Let's think about how to improve it and then we'll decide if it's actually good for the game or not." Yeah, the “correct reaction” from extremely naive people who foolishly think that mechanics are not related to strategy, and can be removed without any impact on the gameplay... History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish. Oh, don't get me wrong, I stopped playing SC2 ladder during the beta of WoL because it just doesn't compare to SCBW. Still sad about the damage it did to SCBW. But if you prefer SC2 over SCBW you really should be open towards this proposition. Ah, never mind then. SC2 players are champions in desiring more of what hurt the game in the first place.
Wait what ? Downfall... you know you want QTE in Starcraft just admit it
|
i dont say its bad let me say it in this way
you sir won the medal for the worst idea in the history of starcraft !
CONGRATULATIONS ! xD
dude its esport mekka sc and you mention some C class rts jokes who did it xD
edit: sry didnt even read ur post completly this fight against "automatic queen inject hack." means it also auto injects ?
like doing the most importent thing of the whole z race for you in when you do it perfect a gold player is insta diamond ?
wow ^^ sir your idea gets even worse reading more of your post, didnt expect that to be even possible xD
|
On April 24 2015 04:35 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:02 jinorazi wrote:
People argue "it's not making it easier" but essentially this idea is to take 1 thing out from 5 things to do so players can focus on remaining 4; making it easier. Having 5 things to do is harder than having 4 things to do.
It's not like there are five things to do now, it's more like 100 things to do while being able to do 10. Now remove 10 mechanical brainless things to do, you still have 90 to chose from, while being able to do perhaps 15. Side note: it's a bit silly to think that mechanical difficulty is required to make the game hard to win. Any five year old could beat Kasparow, as long as he's able to physically move the chess pieces...
Mechanical difficulty is important, you honestly think bw esports got big from build orders and strategy? It was about seeing pros do what was so difficult. You young bloods are driving me crazy trying to label everything as brainless tasks, you want the rims lowered so everyone can dunk.
If you only care for strategy, play chess. This isn't some generic strategy game, it's a real time strategy that is starcraft.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
This is probably better suited to Bnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
