| Forum Index > Closed |
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
MBS and auto mine are not going to add anything to SC2. They will only dumb down the game to appease the masses of newbs who want to be a pro after 1 week of gaming. I really don't see the point of putting negative features like these into a game for people who won't be good at it with or without MBS (they will marginally improve with MBS and auto-mine). | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 10 2007 10:18 akast wrote: Why are you so afraid of change... If you're really pro, you'd adapt to new situations within SC2. I'm not afraid of change making me a losing player (because it won't), I'm afraid of the change making the game less fun/good. Which it might and which it might not, beta time will tell. On September 10 2007 10:35 akast wrote: Well the let me rephrase my question. Whats wrong in favouring strategy over mass clicking? Am I wrong or is SC supposed to be about different and unique strategies? Leave the micro in battles, not in base management. SC is about both. It's about macro, about micro. About strategy and mass clicking. SC is the sum of its parts, SC is the greater whole. On September 10 2007 11:03 InRaged wrote: Is there something that forces you in these discussions? Do you think with help of your demagogy and disputes blizzard will drop UI improvements without even testing them? You hate this subforum, but you are one of those who're keeping these crappy countless flamefest threads about UI alive. It's like writing, writing and writing in "religious" threads at General forums and then saying that forum sucks. Nothing will change till the Beta test. Here, at tl.net, months later nothing changed with help of these infinitive topics - I saw only one person here who's analyzing opponents' arguments and always opened to change his mind if they're good enough, Blacklizard, all other just keep saying same over and over, rising level of anger. I'd suggest instead of blaming Blizzard or this subforum, blame this worthless threads and stop supporting them. I disagree, when we first started this debate months ago there were really no good ideas as far as compromises went (well ok, I liked my idea about using tab to cycle through buildings, and some others had the same one). Now we have several good ones, most especially Luuh's (and was it orangedude or 1esu who also suggested it?) about having to click once per unit you want to produce, ie you select 12 raxes by clicking 5, then go mmmmmmcf and now you've produced a bunch of marines and medics (you could have a counter showing you what rax you are at, ie 7/12 or something). Which is slicker than the current UI, is more precise than MBS and still is still going to add to the hectic feeling of playing an intense BW game. On September 10 2007 11:41 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: Good point.Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained. On September 10 2007 11:51 akast wrote: Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario. Wow, I haven't read through the entire thread yet but I can picture the flames following this post  Sorry, but it's easy to have 12+ gates before 15 minutes, indeed it's almost the standard for PvT. P.S I don't think I used my pinky for making dragoons before, clearly this is more effecient tho, although my ring finger is retarded so I don't think I'll be using that for the numbers any time soon :D!! (maybe I'll learn some day, but 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d with middle/index finger feels fine). This is directed at tasteless' post. Very enjoyable thread btw. D.S | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On September 10 2007 15:15 MyLostTemple wrote: 1esu, this element to starcraft is a feature that completely separates this game from any other rts game that is popular today. I don't see why we would make this games sequal easier so that a bunch of newbs can compete with out learning all the tricks. They can learn like everyone else. Starcraft isn't as popular in major tournaments around the world because most tournaments wont sponsor games unless they have top of the line graphics. It has nothing to do with it's lack of mbs, if that's what your implying. Putting SC2 in the competitive scene with the original UI settings will only help it grow as a spectator sport. I can't believe you'd honestly think SC2 needs to have MBS in order to survive in esports when it's clearly been proven that, when given the chance, this game grows to extremely popular levels like it has in Korea. All it needs is some sexy graphics and some new cool units with THE SAME old interface to be successful. Then you have the looks AND the gameplay. You're being far too optimistic about this. I've been studying the e-sports industry as a whole for the past two years, because I'm interested in how it works. I can confidently say that SC's graphics aren't a factor in its exclusion from major e-sports tournaments; in fact, SC's isometric graphics make it prettier, clearer, and easier to follow than any e-sport I've seen over a streaming VOD (and that's in 640x480 resolution!), which should be a reason FOR including SC on the basis of graphics. I still hear from gamers and non-gamers alike that the graphics are nice, even 10 years after it's release. It's gameplay is unparalleled among games of its type, a clear model exists for how to broadcast it, and because of its iconic status there's less need to explain every little detail to the viewer for them to understand what's going on. The reason SC doesn't have an American or European market is simple; the e-sports industry thrives primarily on the competitive communities of the games they broadcast, and the SC competitive community in the Americas and Europe is too small to be worth the cost of producing professional SC tournaments or leagues (for verification on this, does anyone know what percentage of ICCUP is from non-asian countries?). Therefore, the SC2 competitive community must grow significantly beyond the current SC community in order to get the American/European organizers' attention, and the only way it can do it is with new players, especially those who play other RTSs competitively. Unfortunately, they won't see the beauty involved in the keyboard dexterity required by the SC interface like you and I; they'll see an interface that hasn't adopted a single improvement made by the genre in the past decade, all for the benefit of the relative minority of SC elite who felt that the game was "unplayable" without the EXACT SAME interface. And naturally, they'll expect that the SC community wanted the same interface to let them dominate newcomers (regardless of the actual truth) and will hate Blizzard for letting them have their way. It's what I would think if I were them. So only a small minority of those potential competitive gamers will go through the intense frustration of catching up to 10 years worth of muscle memory training, and the SC2 competitive community will be too small in the long run to support an e-sport. But what about Korea? If you look at the history of SC as an e-sport, you'll see that it was essentially a historical fluke that SC became as popular as it did. The government laid a broadband network across the whole nation, but personal computers were too expensive for most families; thus, PC baangs opened up all over the nation (again with the support of the government). For some reason, the young population of Korea began to go to PC baangs as a social activity. However, also due to the Korean government's actions, FPSs were banned from PC baangs due to their violent content, and many of the best games in those days were FPSs. Thus, there was a dearth of great gameplay in the baangs, and SC ended up filling the gap. Even then, it's potential as an e-sport wasn't realized until a producer for a Korean cartoon network decided it would be a neat idea to broadcast Bnet SC games. The ratings for that show were through the roof, and the producers saw the potential of SC broadcast as a sport in its own right; Korean professional SC was born. That is a lot of coincidental factors that came together to make SC into what it is now: the growth of PC baangs (and with it competitive play), the banning of the single genre that was most likely to compete with SC for gamers' attention, and the random idea to broadcast a show about other people playing a computer game. I'd rather try and limit the amount of luck necessary for SC2 to grow into an e-sport outside of Asia. But alas, i'm too tired to argue about this any more. Now that i've proven i'm arguing with a bunch of people who have never bothered to learn hotkey combos i don't see any reason to discuss this. I'm sorry new players can't learn this quickly, there's a lot about sc you can't learn quickly, that's what makes this game good. Lets just make sure this game is putting the Starcraft players needs somewhat higher than the 'other rts gamer's needs. It was our game first right? I'm sure we can spread our love to the next generation. Tasteless, I respect you both as a seasoned SC gamer, and the best english SC announcer I've had the pleasure of listening to. And I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Unfortunately, in game design you have to be cruel sometimes, you can't let your love for SC cloud your judgement, as you've done time and time again in these two threads. You're asking Blizzard to violate one of the most basic principles of multiplayer game design: Don't make the game too difficult for new players to learn, and protect them from the more experienced players that will eviscerate them for pleasure if given the chance (not that all will, but the 10% that does tends to be the most committed). Any game that has violated this 'Protect the newbies' rule has seen its competitive community dwindle down to a fraction of the size that it was initially, and ironically its also this side that's the most vocal against change in any future products. I'm personally neutral to MBS's inclusion; customizable hotkeys will let me handle the interface the way I'm most comfortable with anyways. However, I will never be persuaded that MBS should be tossed out before it can be extensively tested in a feature-complete closed beta, as opposed to the two or three days you and others from TL spent with an internal alpha. If once it's been extensively tested, it's determined that MBS (or any of the solutions we've come up with, which I suggest you take a look at) is bad for the game, I'll give you a public apology. But I'm not going to risk the long-term growth of the SC2 competitive community by letting you or any of the others so clearly blinded by your (well-placed) love for SC undermine what may be the single most crucial feature for that growth to occur. That's why I've been arguing for the pro-MBS side. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
SCs community hasn't dwindled because the interface doesn't protect new players, the game is simply old and many people followed the money outside korea (ie went on to war3). China still has a sizeable SC scene tho (and war3 obviously), it's still thriving/evolving all these years after the release simply because there's money and a fanbase. SC outside Asia had a fanbase but no money, the e-sports scene was pretty immature outside Korea at the time of War3's release, I'm almost certain the graphics played a big part in which game sponsors felt like investing money into. Then there's the politics of BW/CPL (iirc the CPL head-honcho pretty much loathes BW). A huge part of the warcraft 3 community are ex-SCers, I'm uncertain how they feel about MBS however, but between SC and War3 there's definitely enough players to support SC2. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 10 2007 17:01 1esu wrote: You're being far too optimistic about this. I've been studying the e-sports industry as a whole for the past two years, because I'm interested in how it works. I can confidently say that SC's graphics aren't a factor in its exclusion from major e-sports tournaments; in fact, SC's isometric graphics make it prettier, clearer, and easier to follow than any e-sport I've seen over a streaming VOD (and that's in 640x480 resolution!), which should be a reason FOR including SC on the basis of graphics. I still hear from gamers and non-gamers alike that the graphics are nice, even 10 years after it's release. It's gameplay is unparalleled among games of its type, a clear model exists for how to broadcast it, and because of its iconic status there's less need to explain every little detail to the viewer for them to understand what's going on. The reason SC doesn't have an American or European market is simple; the e-sports industry thrives primarily on the competitive communities of the games they broadcast, and the SC competitive community in the Americas and Europe is too small to be worth the cost of producing professional SC tournaments or leagues in the united states, hasn't sc consistently had a bigger wcg turnout than all other rts games? or is that not what you mean | ||
|
InoX
France11 Posts
I just hope that SC2: -will need a lot of skill -will be balanced -will be fun -will be played a lot | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Asakura
Germany471 Posts
On September 09 2007 09:50 Famehunter wrote: You re taking the words out of my mouth. Could not have said it better. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On September 10 2007 22:50 Aphelion wrote: 1esu, I appreciate your concern and care for e-sports. But really, comparing the development and history of SC2 to other games simply isn't accurate. SC is the only e-sport that has really made it big (no I'm not including the cult following of CS as it isn't accepted the way SC is in korea). Your arguments above game design and protecting noobs must be viewed in the context that all the games developed with such an intention have been far inferior to SC. In fact, it is the whole philosophy of ignoring mechanics, reducing micromanagement, making the UI ever easier is precisely why newer RTSes have never been able to dethrone SC. SC2 must walk its own path, free from such preconceptions. It must be, first and foremost, a game great for professional gameplay, as it is the only game with the chance to fill in SC's footsteps. Anything else would be a major blow. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2608 Posts
On September 10 2007 22:50 Aphelion wrote: 1esu, I appreciate your concern and care for e-sports. But really, comparing the development and history of SC2 to other games simply isn't accurate. SC is the only e-sport that has really made it big (no I'm not including the cult following of CS as it isn't accepted the way SC is in korea). Your arguments above game design and protecting noobs must be viewed in the context that all the games developed with such an intention have been far inferior to SC. In fact, it is the whole philosophy of ignoring mechanics, reducing micromanagement, making the UI ever easier is precisely why newer RTSes have never been able to dethrone SC. SC2 must walk its own path, free from such preconceptions. It must be, first and foremost, a game great for professional gameplay, as it is the only game with the chance to fill in SC's footsteps. Anything else would be a major blow. Your argument does not hold up. SC's succes in Korea was a fluke and in other countries CS was a much bigger game. Strategy games have allways improved on the UI (all games have but few games are so hard to controll), and no strategy game has ever been worse of because of it. I find it kind of funny that people who are against MBS hail the "sum of all parts" as what makes SC such a great game but blame the failure of all other strategy games on their limited UI only. Most of them weren't even intended to compete with SC and most of them did infact sell very well (and were quite fun to play too). Either way this thread is infact over since some people have begun pulling the "STFU n00b" card. I'll just remind those posters that skill is a very minute part of game development and that they have the same experience in that as everyone else here. Fortunatly UI improvments are one of the holy grails in RTS developments, and it's unlikely (nigh on impossible actually) that Blizzard would cut such a feature before running it through public beta. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
If the interface seems outdated and awkward by today's standard (SC's is), then it must be improved in a new game. Simple as that. The game itself must be rich enough to still overwhelm the players with tasks. If it's not, then the game sucks, but not because of the easy interface. It's Blizzard's responsibility to make the game competitive enough with MBS, and I'm confident that they will achieve it. They know the Starcraft progaming scene and know what players and pros want. Players want easier controls and pros just want to be constantly busy and a game that's impossible to master. Both will get what they want, I'm sure. | ||
|
G5
United States2898 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 11 2007 00:34 Brutalisk wrote: If the interface seems outdated and awkward by today's standard (SC's is), then it must be improved in a new game. Simple as that. The game itself must be rich enough to still overwhelm the players with tasks. If it's not, then the game sucks, but not because of the easy interface. It's Blizzard's responsibility to make the game competitive enough with MBS, and I'm confident that they will achieve it. They know the Starcraft progaming scene and know what players and pros want. Players want easier controls and pros just want to be constantly busy and a game that's impossible to master. Both will get what they want, I'm sure. Wrong. Today's RTS standard fucking blows. The only standard SC2 needs to measure to is the standard set by SC. Otherwise you go down the same slippery slope and every other RTS goes down. Why not add unlimited selection? Or a UI that automatically sends every unit to attack move at a click of a button? Or a "continual probe production" button that can be toggled on and off globally? These are all INTERFACE IMPROVEMENTS. By your logic, there is no qualitative difference between adding MBS and those changes. They may be further on the scale, but the idea is the same. The debate is not merely the argument about game mechanics and interface, its about the core philosophy of those games? Who are you catering to? What is the role of speed, APM, and multitasking? If the lack of manual dexterity and mental speed prevents a player from doing what he visualizes, should it be made easier for him to do so? If you feel as I feel, that SC2 is made first and foremost made for the competitive crowd following a professional circuit, and that mechanical training is a core part of such a game, not just a sideshow, a tedious task to be accomplished for the "strategy" - then you will agree that MBS should not be included in SC. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
Quoting karune here: Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously? We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production. Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser? Of course. Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time? Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing. As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing". | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
On September 10 2007 13:08 EvilTeletubby wrote: Actually no, Nick wanted to gauge his skill level... I watched the first game, there was a pretty clear difference. Tasteless started showing orange some macro or keyboard tricks (or 'secrets' as he kept calling them), he was genuinely trying to help orange get better, although I don't think orange has a very receptive attitude about it, but meh, Nick tried at least... Anyways, this thread is getting pretty useless, if nothing productive comes after another page I'll close it. I guess I misread the situation then, I felt tasteless was angry when he asked for a 1v1. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
On September 11 2007 01:33 Aphelion wrote: Wrong. Today's RTS standard fucking blows. The only standard SC2 needs to measure to is the standard set by SC. Otherwise you go down the same slippery slope and every other RTS goes down. Why not add unlimited selection? Or a UI that automatically sends every unit to attack move at a click of a button? Or a "continual probe production" button that can be toggled on and off globally? These are all INTERFACE IMPROVEMENTS. By your logic, there is no qualitative difference between adding MBS and those changes. They may be further on the scale, but the idea is the same. @Unlimited selection: This should be in IMHO, although there's one good reason not to include it: you won't be able to see the health status of all units at the bottom of the screen when selecting too many. Immediately seeing how damaged your units are or how many have died from the group is important. But at least the selection limit should be increased, 12 is just too limiting, especially for zergling groups. @Continous worker production button: This would not be an improvement as it would eliminate a very important aspect of macro. You must be able to decide whether to build workers or not, this is an important part of the game's macro, especially when playing Zerg. Having such a toggle button would mean: - good players won't use it at all because you need to decide that based on the situation, always - bad players who think it's an improvement leave it on all the time and become even worse players because they spend too many resources/time on workers when they need to shortly cut their production The debate is not merely the argument about game mechanics and interface, its about the core philosophy of those games? Who are you catering to? What is the role of speed, APM, and multitasking? If the lack of manual dexterity and mental speed prevents a player from doing what he visualizes, should it be made easier for him to do so? If you feel as I feel, that SC2 is made first and foremost made for the competitive crowd following a professional circuit, and that mechanical training is a core part of such a game, not just a sideshow, a tedious task to be accomplished for the "strategy" - then you will agree that MBS should not be included in SC. Every game is first and foremost made for the general crowd. If not, it wouldn't sell and die. Starcraft was made for the general public, too. It wasn't made for the hardcore WC2 players. It has a much easier interface than WC2. And despite all this (you are behaving like old hardcore WC2 players who flame SC for being a noob game) it is perfectly suited for competitive play due to its balance and tactical and strategical depth. It was already possible, so it can be possible with SC2 too. SBS is in no way necessary so that the game is competitive enough. You can make the gameplay rich enough so that players won't have to use 50-70% of their attention to tedious macro tasks because nothing else needs to be done. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On September 09 2007 10:33 CharlieMurphy wrote: Complicating other things in order to compensate for MBS is retarded imo.Thats just annoying. Just don't allow the MBS in the first place. Why is it retarded to add more to the game? For example, going from warcraft 2 to starcraft, there were more units/abilities/buildings/etc. Which were allowed because there was a better interface and therefore more time to do different things. It didn't "complicate" the game, just added to it. What is fundamentally wrong with adding even more? The only way I believe this could be solved is having a player choose the options before games (like game speed, game type, etc.) I'm very strongly against this. I think everyone needs to play with the same interface. Thats just a basic, fundamental thing. I mean, balancing would literally change depending on whether MBS was on or off. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 11 2007 01:59 Klockan3 wrote: I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that. Quoting karune here: As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing". You'll have to find someone better to quote than Karune. He's not exactly high up in the process of making SC2... | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
BSL 2v2 ProLeague S3
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
