|
On September 14 2007 06:22 Mergesort wrote:
As pointed out by quite many here already; Blizz will most likely keep MBS in sc2 in order to have a well functioning interface for new players, anything else would greatly surprise me. In order for a game to be good, it has to be challenging for players at all levels. This means that if the game is too hard it will lead to frustration (which is especially bad for gamers at low and average level), and if the game isn't challenging enough it would end up being boring. Some examples are chess and poker, easy to learn the rules but always challenging, going by the concept "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master". The interface should be as friendly and intuitive as possible to newcomers, but still not made too easy for the experienced players.
MBS will thus be almost a necessity in order to satisfy the masses, but it brings up problems for high level players. To the posters who refered to wc3: I can confirm that wc3 is in many ways "too easy" for progamers. In sc there's seemingly always something which could be done better or faster, in wc3 many things are so easy to do (on semipro to pro level) that the only aspect which distinguish players are just how perfect they execute a strat. At such a level in wc3 when both players plays close to perfection, the small things matters more, and randomness takes over (item drops, map pos etc). For professional wc3 players this is quite a headache, as the chance of losing to a "decent but worse player" will always be quite high when the macro is so easy to execute. This is relevant to the arguments about MBS shrinking the gap between players, it's hard to win an easy game (it's for example hard to have a 90% winrate in rock-scissor-paper). Of course if a less skilled player could never beat a better player then it wouldn't be that exciting, but it shouldn't occur that often.
I've tested sc2 and I must say that some of the "fear" that the game might become too easy in terms of macro seems reasonable. For example with terran you can have 10 rax with reactors and 10 fac+reactors in group1, and 10 rax+tech and 10 fac+tech in group2. You could then macro 40 buildings with 1mm[tab]vv, 2c[tab]t. For protoss it's even easier if you are just massing one unit from all gateways. However there is a chance that it will still be impossible to reach perfection in macro and micro multitasking. Maybe it was just the low unit count in wc3 which made that game too easy (i.e too small gap between players), and that progamers practicing sc2 all day long will always have something in their game which could have been done faster and better. Maybe the new standard for example will add a new dimension to the use of split armies, doing 4-5 battles at the same time on different places while constantly building units\structures\expands and keep scouting.
To sum it up it seems determined that sc2 will have MBS. Personally I think it's good to have MBS as it helps new gamers quite a lot, but it might lead to an oversimplified game for the progamers. It would be nice if someone managed to come up with an idea of new aspects in the game which gamers had to spend time. Something which the new gamers didn't have to care much about (because they have enough going on already), but which kept challenging the top players and distinguished the semipro's from the pro's.
Very good post. This pretty much sums up a lot of points from both sides of the MBS debate (including my OP) in a more compact form.
I personally found it interesting that you mention Poker as an example of a game that is easy to learn, but nearly impossible to achieve perfection and contrasted this to War3. I agree that Poker is very easy to pick up and learn the rules (almost deceptively easy), and that this is one ingredient of its success. Now I don't follow the Poker scene very closely, but as far as I'm aware doesn't luck play a huge factor in determining the winners in Poker (due to its very nature as a game of chance)? Sure, there are a lot of subtleties with reading tells, making the right calls and so on, but I don't believe there would be an very big difference between a pro-poker player and a semi-pro. Also, very rarely does the same player win the WPT more than once.
I think the reason why the pro-Poker scene is so competitive is because the game is itself founded from a background of gambling, and thus has a ridiculous amount of cash flowing in the game. This allows the few top players who are just minutely better than the rest to win slightly more often than everyone else and thus manage to make a large enough net surplus in money to earn a living by playing Poker. The massive amount of $$$ and large public interest in Poker is what really keeps the scene competitive rather than the large difference in skills between the players if you think about it.
Furthermore, I don't believe the problem that you state among War3 players is as huge as it really is. I mean I would never doubt Grubby's opinion if he thinks that sometimes skill level isn't as differentiated as he would like it to be, but I don't think this is anywhere near the biggest problem with the game as an E-Sport. There are other major issues that I've mentioned before that make War3 less suitable for a spectator sport than SC. Advantages for SC include these: it's cleaner to watch, easier to understand for the average viewer, faster paced, better balanced, has less chasing rather than battles, and more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III_World_Championships
If you look at this list of recent winners of major Warcraft 3 tournaments over recent years (not a complete list), you may notice that Grubby has won 6 and placed in the top 4, for 16 of the past 29 international tournaments (2004-2007), and Moon also something similar. Clearly, there is still enough room for the top players to comfortably dominate the rest more often than not, and this cannot possibly be due to luck alone.
You also said that you have tried SC2 and that these "fears" may be reasonable, but you have to keep in mind that all of you people played only a few hours on an early alpha build of SC2 facing mostly noobs. Also remember that you were likely playing with the SC mindset, when SC2 could make major changes to up the difficulty in several areas that we are not even aware of yet. I don't believe this can be taken as conclusive evidence yet, to either support or reject MBS and we'd have to wait until beta to see for sure when it is tested thoroughly.
I guess my overall point I'm trying to make is that the #1 most important factor in determining the success of a game or sport is whether or not if it can continually attract new players into the game over the long-term and maintain the interest of these players for long enough to go pro. While a large difference of skill is certainly desirable, it is not necessarily the most important factor (e.g. as evidenced by the Poker scene).
Thus, if MBS is necessary to attract a large amount of people for a game released in the year 2008 and keep them playing, then it would be foolish for Blizzard not to implement it if they are concerned with the future of E-Sports (outside of Korea).
|
On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers. I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP. I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good. And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Errr....
Anyone can have similar to Boxer-esque micro if all they did was micro. Don't whine because you love micro so much.
Massing to 200/200 may happen in TvP but I doubt you will find it in any other matchup or in games of higher caliber players. The Koreans aren't able to micro because they are "too good", they are "too good" because they can micro AND macro.
+ Show Spoiler [random] +You bring the crowns and heads of conquered players to my city steps. You insult my macro. You threaten my people with monotony and micro! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, WarCrafter. Perhaps you should have done the same!
THIS. IS. TEAMLIQUID.
|
Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote:
All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis. A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS.
Dude, you actually make a lot of good points. It seems in fact we disagree on something more subtle, that's why the example of tennis appears accurate for both of us.
Actually i DO agree with interface improving !!! That's incredible you assume i think differently. Of course I want to allow MBS to set up the rally point, for example.
Although the real point is very simple to understand, i will put it in bold this time, if that helps : I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro ! For sure newbs have different views on the core of the game than veterans.
So maybe i will take the example of tennis once again : its no problem they improve the racket interface, and i would perfectly agree with this kind of things in SC. However, I would not agree they fucking change the height of the net to make it easier. If you don't understand the difference between the two 'improvements', then i think you indeed can't understand my point.
So now, just try to discuss the part in bulk, to see your views on the question. You think it won't change this balance ? You think it won't be bad for the game ? For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
|
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote:
I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro !
If you changed it to I strongly disagree with anything which substantially changes the balance of micro and macro on the higher levels of SC play for the worse, I would accept your point.
However, I don't believe that you, or I, or anyone here has the right to say that such a change would necessarily be negative, or even have any effect at all; that could only be determined through extensive testing of a feature-complete version of SC2. It's exceedingly difficult, if not practically impossible, to figure out the effects of adding/removing/altering a mechanic from the ruleset of any game on the gameplay dynamics without actually playing the new version. If testing comes to the conclusion that MBS is harmful for gameplay, then it will have to be refined into something similar yet requiring more skill, like Luuh's suggestion for a unit-hotkey press for each unit of that type you wish to build. However, that's the point we are trying to make: SC2 can't have the same interface as SC if it is going to have any significant chance of becoming a professional e-sport outside of Asia, because the long-term competitive community will be too small to support it.
Sorry about the italics, but those seem to be the details of our argument that are most often missed by critics.
|
|
|
On September 14 2007 14:41 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote:
I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro !
If you changed it to I strongly disagree with anything which substantially changes the balance of micro and macro on the higher levels of SC play for the worse, I would accept your point. However, I don't believe that you, or I, or anyone here has the right to say that such a change would necessarily be negative, or even have any effect at all; that could only be determined through extensive testing of a feature-complete version of SC2. It's exceedingly difficult, if not practically impossible, to figure out the effects of adding/removing/altering a mechanic from the ruleset of any game on the gameplay dynamics without actually playing the new version. If testing comes to the conclusion that MBS is harmful for gameplay, then it will have to be refined into something similar yet requiring more skill, like Luuh's suggestion for a unit-hotkey press for each unit of that type you wish to build. However, that's the point we are trying to make: SC2 can't have the same interface as SC if it is going to have any significant chance of becoming a professional e-sport outside of Asia, because the long-term competitive community will be too small to support it. Sorry about the italics, but those seem to be the details of our argument that are most often missed by critics.
I totally agree on the points you raise.
I also share this point of view, even if i have some strong beliefs that it will necesseraly mess up the balance, cause macro will be too easy. The worse point imo : multi selection on command centers or hatches, coupled with auto mining.
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
The end of the reasonning is NO newb features dangerous for the gameplay.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2007 09:39 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 09:36 Vietnam_Oi wrote:
Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass You can't hotkey mass-selected larvae IIRC, but you can hotkey mass-selected buildings.
You can, and I often do when I want mutalisks or something, but there's not much point since the hotkeys transfer to the units after they are finished building.
|
For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
How skilled you are at games have little to do with how good games you make. You can call game designers noobs all you want but they still know more about making games than you do.
Good gamers are nice when you want to balance something but they still aren't the one doing the balancing, they just test the stuff for the real developers.
|
On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
If the game isnt fundamentally better than starcraft in a lot of ways it would just split the sc community between the 2 titles since they are to equal, the 10 years must show or we can just aswell play sc1. This way if MBS is a success they will take both the whole new crowd and the sc crowd+ wc3 crowd, while if its not a success they will still take a large chunk of the sc players and still get all the new player + wc3 players.
However wo mbs they will almost only have the sc crowd.
Its like gambling like this:
A: You get 50 dollars.
B: 50% to get 200 dollars, if you loose you get 150 dollars.
Wich do you think is the best to choose?
Edit: And as another note, if Blizzard made a game like the long time starcraft veterans here want their reputation would go down to hell and people would talk so much trash about Blizzard only catering to the pro players that wants to dominate everyone in the game, wich would crush their sales a ton.
You cant live on a repuation if you dont keep it up.
|
On September 15 2007 01:02 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2.
ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
|
On September 15 2007 01:58 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2007 01:02 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2. ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
That's an awful analogy.
|
On September 15 2007 01:58 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2007 01:02 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2. ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s?
CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed?
|
That reminds me of a certain Battle.net poster: "I want the Game to be competative, not fun".
|
I am so torn right now between being a developer and being a hardcore player.
i mean, i'm planning on taking 2 months off work just so i can play sc2 all day..
and what kind of sc2 do i want to play!? *cry*
|
On September 15 2007 02:30 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2007 01:58 Hawk wrote:On September 15 2007 01:02 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2. ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s? CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed?
If it's practically the same game with better graphics then why would it fail? If the gameplay was kept perfectly the same and the only thing that changed was the graphics then there really wouldn't be a reason to stay with the old version right?
The vast majority of my friends that play CS say they tried Source and went back to 1.6 despite the better graphics, not because of them. Perhaps you could elaborate why a perfect clone with better graphics could somehow be worse than the older version?
|
On September 15 2007 02:52 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2007 02:30 Klockan3 wrote:On September 15 2007 01:58 Hawk wrote:On September 15 2007 01:02 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 14:56 Fuu wrote:
Now the next question in the reasonning is : is it worth to take the risk, if you consider the game can have a huge success as well without these features, which is my point of view. These features are for sure not needed apart from the points you mentionned with Orangedude. Even it's a little more successful in the beginning, for me it's still not worth it.
Well, there is no risk at all for blizzard to go with mbs, for every starcraft loyalist that jumps the boat 10 new will take his place, and after a while all but the most bitter of Starcraft players will still go play starcraft 2. ever play counter strike 1.6 and cs:s? CS:S were almost a CS clone with better graphics, wonder why it failed? If it's practically the same game with better graphics then why would it fail? If the gameplay was kept perfectly the same and the only thing that changed was the graphics then there really wouldn't be a reason to stay with the old version right? The vast majority of my friends that play CS say they tried Source and went back to 1.6 despite the better graphics, not because of them. Perhaps you could elaborate why a perfect clone with better graphics could somehow be worse than the older version?
You can never make a perfect clone since the engine is different, thats why they didnt stay, everything feels different in that game so why play it when you can play the same game but with the good old feel?
The same would happen to sc2 if it were a clone, every unit would feel different and people would rush back to sc1 just beacuse nothing is really what it was just beacuse its in a different engine. However if starcraft 2 can deliver a lot of new things compared to sc1 then theres a reason to switch and go through those annoying moments were everything feels alien, and for those that dont want to switch they would stay with starcraft 1 anyway.
So its like if they go sc1 clone they get ~half the sc community just beacuse theres no real reason to switch. If they do something new they will get a ton more, partly starcraft players that are up for some refreshing new stuff, partly new players, partly players from other games and partly old time starcraft players that got bored of old starcraft.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
|
On September 15 2007 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote:
CS:S is not CS 1.6 with better graphics hahah
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
|
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote:
All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis. A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS. Although the real point is very simple to understand, i will put it in bold this time, if that helps : I strongly disagree with everything which radically changes the way the only successful game for e-sport is played, the core of the thing, the balance micro / macro ! For sure newbs have different views on the core of the game than veterans.
Newbs have different views on the core of the game because they essentially are playing a different game. SC is a totally different core game to a BGH noob than to a mid-level player than to a progamer. The noob will probably spend 95% of his time on macro then a-attack, the mid-level player will probably spend the majority of his time on macro and add a bit of micro into the mix, while the progamer will have a very good balance of juggling both. The problem is, the population will be arranged in a pyramid fashion, with the noobs vastly outnumbering the mid-levels, and even those greatly outnumbering the pros. That's why it is crucial to make the game as friendly to the noobs as possible, in order to let them gradually rise up their chain over the long-term. I'm sure that Blizzard will also find ways to make it challenging at the upper levels if experience has taught us anything.
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote:
So maybe i will take the example of tennis once again : its no problem they improve the racket interface, and i would perfectly agree with this kind of things in SC. However, I would not agree they fucking change the height of the net to make it easier. If you don't understand the difference between the two 'improvements', then i think you indeed can't understand my point.
I can understand any example if its clarified and reasonably argued. In this case, I can see your point. Changing the height of the net is a bit different from "changing the rules". Then again, you do sometimes see this kind of thing happening in sports to make the sport friendlier for kids to learn. For example, basketball nets are placed at a lower height than NBA standard for kids and there are different sizes of basketball, footballs, etc.
On September 14 2007 14:15 Fuu wrote:
So now, just try to discuss the part in bulk, to see your views on the question. You think it won't change this balance ? You think it won't be bad for the game ? For most knowledged starcraft player the answer is clear. On these SC2 forums we have a bunch of noobs and war3 players. Now go to ask this question to the people who actually play the game and are interested in progaming. And give me also your opinion. You're not on the blizzard side, i want to know what you think as a player !
My own view is similar to 1esu's. I'll quote one of them here. While I am not on Blizzard's side per-say, I tend to try to think things through as realistically as possible. I try to look at the whole picture rather than think about myself and whether I will enjoy the game or not (because this doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things).
On September 14 2007 11:03 orangedude wrote:
You also said that you have tried SC2 and that these "fears" may be reasonable, but you have to keep in mind that all of you people played only a few hours on an early alpha build of SC2 facing mostly noobs. Also remember that you were likely playing with the SC mindset, when SC2 could make major changes to up the difficulty in several areas that we are not even aware of yet. I don't believe this can be taken as conclusive evidence yet, to either support or reject MBS and we'd have to wait until beta to see for sure when it is tested thoroughly.
On September 14 2007 02:27 orangedude wrote:
I started off playing SC in about '97 when it first came out and played it for a couple years as a noob back then, until War3 was released. When I switched to War3, I actually got a bit more serious and found that I also really enjoyed micro and got to a very high level there.
However, because some of my friends were still playing SC (for fun), I eventually switched back to SC in around 2005. When I came back, I was also frustrated for a long time in not having enough time to micro, because the macro took up most of my apm and concentration. Since we kept playing though, after several months I eventually got used to the macro/micro aspects of SC and didn't mind too much.
An important point here I'm trying to make is that if I didn't have an incentive to keep playing SC because some of my buddies were playing there making it fun, I would've never stuck to it and learned how both macro and micro can be enjoyable. I'm sure the vast majority of people who are used to a newer UI from any recent game (including War3) would feel the exact same way after playing SC2 if it didn't include MBS. Many would not keep playing long enough or give it a chance, before they can actually become better at the game.
|
Dominican Republic825 Posts
MBS: Do we need this? select all producing building and hotkey them? Starcraft has been plaing for years and nobody cares about this, only some freaking noobs. Even dragndrop production buildings (not hotkeyable ofc) will be better than select & hotkey all. in sc pros can start building in 9 barracks in a second, i can do it in 3 seconds... with mbs everybody can do this in half a second without any skill
Automining: I dont see why should be sending peons mining should be removed. its important part of building base, u cant build anything if u dont have minerals, u cant have minerals without peons, it\'s so big deal? to build a peon and send another to crystal? who cares about w3? it\'s stupid in same way as \"idle worker\" button ... people forget, some more, some less, why make them equal? i dont care about w3 and lazy w3 players who want to play sc2! sc2 can\'t be w3 in space! u can remove peon sending and then think: hm but these player forgot to build units... let\'s add some automacro button ... hm lets add better unit intelligence so players dont have to micro! oh and remove supply coz some players forget to build them? NO WAY!
Besides it really disadvantages zerg (i assume similar unit production like in sc, larvae
and hatcheries) coz zerg usually builds drones in bursts in same occations like after winning a battle etc. from all hatcheries and then sending them, even with special \"rally drone\" button its complication instead of \"rally the nearest crystal&forget\" for toss and terran
building queues: works in w3 where each race has similar building system, wont work in balanced way in sc with warp/build/mutating. zerg once again gains no advantage, but protoss can EASILY build the whole new base with one probe very very very easily. It isnt so bad feature like smartcast but must be used in balanced way.
smartcast:
remember boxer\'s famous 6 battlecruisers lockdown? or blinding observers with optical flare? this was awesome ... but now this can be done by everyone ... every noob can select 8 or so ghost and shift-click everything ... even toss newbie will be stormin like a pro, what will further differenciate players? using special abilities will be quite easy with smartcast and with hotkeyable MBS it wont be macro neither ... we will have many players at same \"skill\" level beating each other radomly with automining, smartcast and 2keys MBS macro with building queues, nobody will be top coz there wont be a space to apply specific skill, noobs will be happy, but its fair? it was said it\'s to encourage newplayers but can i as a newbie expect this advantages? when i m starting playin new game i cant expect i ll top in next week, month or even year ...
has everybody seen terran gameplay vid? how the commentator sniped 3 marines easily in half a second? I dont want to make someone angry but i think he doesnt have \"skill\" and still he can snipe like pro. Remember Nada\'s mass irradiating? now it can be done by everyone! just select 12 vessels and shift-click!
this model seems like communism in online gaming... arent you skilled enough? who cares! play like a pro with new features!
Same as autocast-building scarabs and interceptors, carrier is really powerful unit with smal \"disadvantage\" you have to build interceptors, this will make carrier normal unit. Now you dont have to care if u forgot build scarabs, interceptors because u just cant forgot
NOBODY WHO PLAYS SC AT DECENT LEVEL WANT THIS ... only some not-so-good players who wants to have a better chance to beat skilled players, this isn\'t future of sc and proplayin. Many people just cant run 100meters under 10s and some people will never play sc well ... this cant be changed by making game easier! U have said \"skilled player can use blink ...\" but skilled player can do MORE than use a few units at time while 2keys macroing... with easy macro, ease smartcast micro and atocast and automining, will we have enough space to fine divide skill levels? i dont think so.
It really isnt about making game harder for every chance but it also isnt about makin game easier!
You have said many times you DO care about community and progaming ... so why are you implementing these features? What\'s better for sc2? More hardcore fans and progamers who will be playin sc2 for years, decades or some \"money maps, stupid ums (sunken defence, zergling madness etc.) players playin once a week who does really care about units, balance, expanding, micro/macro; only enjoying graphics effects and gettin another new game after a few weeks? In fact after years will progaming make more money than a few more copies sold to vacancy gamers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2981659/2/istockphoto_2981659_coloring_in_book.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0285-0609-2005-5836_SM.jpg)
