|
On September 28 2007 03:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2007 22:44 Klockan3 wrote:On September 27 2007 01:20 LuisMl8 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
So this is just a tiny list of things i've seen that I did not like when it comes to competative SC. It has mostly to do with the user interface, as that is what concerns me the most. I want SC2 to be a great sucsessor to StarCraft. And not a game that feels more like WC3 playing, as I dident like that game at all.
Mostly it has to do with not makeing SC2 easier than StarCraft to play. I do not belive Starcraft is about micro. That is not what makes Starcraft great, the battles are a sideshow of what is really going on under the hood.
It's about speed, and should not be made easier and slower to play, just so everyone can feel like they can play good. It should take massive amounts of dedication to reach the top level. And at the top level macro and legendary multitasking is the job, everything else is flavour.
Ofcourse great sc2 players will always be better than average ones.
But if it gets reduced to who can micro units the best, and the exreeme macro that we know is needed for Starcraft at the top level is cut from the game, I won't be interested in following it.
I could explain all of this and why I have theese views. But im not interested in spending more time on this unless someone from blizzard would want me to explain it.
My biggest concern is ofcourse that SC2 wont play and feel like Starcraft. Starcraft was a huge sucess befor it boomed in Korea, and going away from the gameplay feel of Starcraft would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
anyways... heres the thingies that comes to mind right now.
- smartcasting (should be off, shift-cloneing needed)
- mixed group spellcasting (should be off, like
m&m in same ctrl-group should not be stimmable)
- selecting multiple buildings at once (should not be possible)
- selecting unlimited units at once (should not be possible)
- rallying to mineral line and automatically harvesting (should not be possible)
- Worker "overlapping" (when you send a worker to mine it should ignore other units in it's path, and cause "confusion" when overridden, currently this is not possible?)
- Dropships should still be able to unload while moveing.
- some units should be able to fire while moveing useing "patrol trick" or similar.
- game looks messy, very pretty but too much overlapping graphics = headache for micro.
- no autobuilding on interceptors or scarabs, etc..
- no autorepair
- no unit rank increace (veterancy, no-no..)
- No smart "worker split" ai
- No holding in alt for health display on units.
- Dead units should look clean and quick when dieing, no parts flying everywhere blocking view.
- minimap should be 100% black befor explored (no showing of minerals on it)
- and i don't remember more right now..
I think you forgot a few things: -Colossus is a bad unit concept, lasers blocking the view and cliffclimbing ground units dont fit starcraft. Please remove. -Reaver got to be back, its so important to so many strats in starcraft. -Reapers are useless units with just cheesy things to do, plz remove, instead add firebat wich is much better. -Science vessel>Nomad, why would you scrap one of terrans most important units and add this useless pos? -Terran needs a dedicated aa ground unit eventhough they were the only race to have such a unit they were a very important part of terran play. -You shouldnt be able to instant deploy units, only producing them from buildings and not teleporting them around, that would just cause a lot of confusion and would invalidate a lot of older strats. -You shouldnt be able to move/sell turrets, imagine all the cheesy turret push strats people will use?? -Cliffwalking in general is bad, how will terran/toss now be able to stop early pushes when the enemy can just walk around the ramp?? -Theres many more but i cant care to list them. Now, look! We will get the perfect game if we just follow this way of thinking! I know you are making a mocking post, but.. I want the reaver back because I think shuttle+reaver micro is one of the most fun things to do in SC and I hope it returns in Sc2. The science vessel looks a lot better than the nomad so far (but we have seen VERY little of the nomad, I've basically only seen a poor screenshot of it where it looked like a flying toaster).
It's not much, but Colossuss can now be carried by a Phase Prism. One of the latest Q&As said that.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
But the colossus, which is a nice unit, has absolutely no apeal as a droppable unit, especially given that it can, you know, walk over cliffs on its own.
The reaver is cool cause its effectiveness increases like 10 times when you have a shuttle with it and can dodge attacks while cooling down and shit 
|
On September 28 2007 03:05 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote:
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this. This thread should be over now. The nail is in the coffin as far as I am concerned.
I thougth the same thing when Mora posted way back but obviously that didn't happen. So no, thread is not over.
|
On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote:
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this.
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
So is this Lazerflip a famous player? 
|
On September 28 2007 04:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:But the colossus, which is a nice unit, has absolutely no apeal as a droppable unit, especially given that it can, you know, walk over cliffs on its own. The reaver is cool cause its effectiveness increases like 10 times when you have a shuttle with it and can dodge attacks while cooling down and shit
Yes, its cliff-walking ability does make Phase Prisms somewhat irrelevant. It has a prolonged attack, though, so good timing is necessary to keep it from getting stuck firing its lasers. I agree that doesn't make up for the loss of micro with the Reaver's departure.
On September 28 2007 05:52 Stegosaur wrote:So is this Lazerflip a famous player?
Well, he opposes MBS, so he must be. After all, what are the odds someone would make 400 accounts to troll the boards with pro-MBS propaganda, inciting flamewars between the two sides?
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
Well my comment was triggered by this
Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right.
So I'd imagine Skew recognized him from somewhere =)
|
ya he is, he went to wcg usa for c&c3
|
Guys, RL Lazerflip may well be the true king of England for all I care. This guy has his nickname.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 28 2007 05:28 Skew wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote:
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this. Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
Yeah, any feature that benefits noobs will instantly ruin a game by itself. You know that game Starcraft? The micro in there was completely ruined and made everyone extremely good at it in one year because of two ridiculous noobifying features: multiple unit select and auto-attack. Not only could you select more than one unit at once, they could all attack by themselves with no input from the player! Talk about the game playing itself instead of the player playing! Micro then became a non-factor in the game that was now all-macro oriented, which is the reason why everybody in the world could micro as well as Boxer a year after the game was released. Starcraft subsequently died due to its noob-helping interface. And don't even get me started on auto-mining. With just one click, you can tell the worker to automate itself! Workers even find micro themselves in a mineral line by finding empty minerals after the one it went to was already being mined! Where's the fun in playing if the worker plays the game and not you? In order for Starcraft 2 to be a success, it will have to remove these noob features and once again make the player play the game, not an interface that does it for him.
|
On September 28 2007 12:17 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2007 05:28 Skew wrote:On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote:
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this. Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons). Yeah, any feature that benefits noobs will instantly ruin a game by itself. You know that game Starcraft? The micro in there was completely ruined and made everyone extremely good at it in one year because of two ridiculous noobifying features: multiple unit select and auto-attack. Not only could you select more than one unit at once, they could all attack by themselves with no input from the player! Talk about the game playing itself instead of the player playing! Micro then became a non-factor in the game that was now all-macro oriented, which is the reason why everybody in the world could micro as well as Boxer a year after the game was released. Starcraft subsequently died due to its noob-helping interface. And don't even get me started on auto-mining. With just one click, you can tell the worker to automate itself! Workers even find micro themselves in a mineral line by finding empty minerals after the one it went to was already being mined! Where's the fun in playing if the worker plays the game and not you? In order for Starcraft 2 to be a success, it will have to remove these noob features and once again make the player play the game, not an interface that does it for him.
good point.
hell we might as well just go ahead and have the game play itself, all you have to do is input what strategy you want it to execute!
these arguments can be made for both sides and they are ridiculous for both sides. a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play.
the argument lies in what balance fits sc2, but making idiotic over-simplified statements trying to demean the position you dont agree with accomplishes nothing. come up with a real argument or shut up.
|
On September 28 2007 12:37 IdrA wrote:
a good game needs a balance, hard enough to play to be competetive (everyone cant be godly on a weeks practice), but not so hard that its no fun to play.
Yes. And this balance isn't given in SC1, because the better you get, the more important macro is.
You will do some micro tasks, sure, depending on their importance (some micro tasks are so important that you can't just ignore them, for example running a group of M&M from lurkers or a psi storm), but nonetheless you'll be busy 75% of the time with macroing.
And this is just wrong, even though there is skill needed for it. The skill itself is "wrong". It shouldn't be a deciding factor in the game who is the fastest keyboard jockey. I know that some of the pro-SBS people like that skill, would like to keep it and think that it makes the game richer. But the pro-MBS people think that the skill is too stupid to have in the game again.
Also, remember that macro consists of other factors, which are more important than just the keyboard speed. For example, pick any non-Korean gamer with the same APM as iloveoov or Savior (to name two well-known macro monsters). Does he have the same unbelievable macro now? Nope.
So we see that macro is much more than just clicking. It's deciding when to build what, when to expand, when to focus on worker or unit production as Z, and so on. And all that is still present if you include MBS. It's just the tedious factor that gets removed, and that in turn allows the player to do more micro tasks which previously were too unimportant to do. And units or abilities, which are just too hard to use in SC1 (e.g. ghosts, restoration, mind control, parasite) will maybe become more common. So there's the potential for more variety. In SC1, everyone (including pro gamers) is so busy with macro and controlling the usual few units in combination that many things are just too hard to do, so they aren't done. Ever.
Things to consider:
- Macro is more important than micro in SC1 ==> SC2 should fix the balance again by making micro more important or macro less important, or both. This is my most important point. It also gives creative players like Boxer and Nal_Ra better chances again.
- Being fast with the keyboard is a skill, but one that is considered tedious by many players
- Blizzard games have always been about being easy to learn but hard to master. If you make a game without MBS now, it won't be easy to learn, because all other games don't have SBS anymore. This is against Blizzard philosophy. Plus, it might prevent these newbies from becoming future gosus just because the UI ruined the fun for them, so they stop playing it.
- Without MBS, It will be very hard for newbies who are used to the "better" interfaces of newer RTS games to get at least better than the "total noob" level. With MBS, this will help them and also make BattleNet more interesting for the better players. I bet many of you who are at least of average skill hate playing a random 1v1 and notice after 6 or 7 minutes that your opponent is so extremely bad that you'll just walk over him shortly. It was just a waste of time. And when you think that this was the worst player you've ever played against, then soon you will run into one who is even worse. And this goes on and on.
If you make macro less time consuming by introducing MBS, players can concentrate more on micro. Previously unimportant actions will become important again if you want to have an edge over your opponent. So, in theory, there should still be enough to do for you. If everyone is macroing less, then everyone will be microing more. I don't understand why this would require less skill. I guess most of you just immediately think of WC3, but it's bad to compare these two games. WC3 is all about having small groups of units around one hero, and the units don't die fast. So the game is much slower and easier to overview than Starcraft. And this leads to progamers being "bored". But I don't see how SC2 could possibly become like that. I think it's just vastly exaggerated to say that MBS will make the game boring because there will be "nothing left to do".
Of course all SC1 hardcore gamers will think that SC2 is easier when they are first confronted with MBS, but this will just be temporarily because they will soon learn that they have to start concentrating more on the OTHER things, because if they don't, they will start losing soon once everyone knows the basics of SC2.
You'll need to adapt and change your game style. It's a new game after all, not SC1 with new graphics and units. Blizzard has progamers testing the game, and they know that SC2 must be a competitive game. It would be silly to think that it will become a noob game, and it's just as silly to think that SBS is a requirement for having a competitive RTS game. If you seriously think that, then just read iamke55's post for ideas on how to make the game even more competitive. WOW!
(Long post again... meh.)
|
I can't believe you people don't think SC is better than C&C 3 and so many other RTS games simply because there's no MBS & auto-mine. There's way more to the game. They can please the masses AND add things to make the game more difficult at the same time.
Personally I think they should make upgrades & upgrade timing a bit more important in this game (to pull attention from the player in a way other than unit production). Their also making macro a bit harder by making gas scarcer, so there's probably going to be a constant slew of action between the low gas units, but choosing how many and what gas heavy units to produce will important too. You don't want production slots to be taken up. I mean, MBS is nice when you need 5 zealots, but what if you need that one extra templar? If you just pressed z then the production slot is taken.
|
On September 28 2007 05:28 Skew wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2007 02:01 Lazerflip wrote:
I am one of the "few" you speak of who play RTS competitively in other games, but never played SC. I hop around the shitty noob RTS games that appear in WCG and stuff (Dawn of War, Command & Conquer 3). If you want to know what I think, I think that MBS would ruin Starcraft 2 and automine would ruin SC2. SC as an original formula worked. Command & Conquer 3 (a new RTS that people play) has all of these features that you guys are debating, and even MORE. The game practically plays itself. And I can say that, on a competitive level, the game is TERRIBLE! And where do you stop with the ridiculous noobified features? You add MBS...do you want to be able to queue up more units without paying for them? Do you want to be able to set a barracks to automatically build more marines for you as you get the money so you don't have to constantly do it? Do you want your Command Center to automatically produce workers for you if you right click the worker icon? I have to ask, where does it stop? Sure, you can keep adding ridiculous features in hopes of making the noobs happier, but I can tell you a few things with CERTAINTY; doing these things makes the game WORSE and not better because as the "easy buttons" pile up, eventually there is just nothing to do and there you sit looking at the screen while your units get built. It sucks and this is not what you want for SC2. Draw a hard line, let a macro/micro game be just what it is, and hope people like it. Hell, they liked the first one, why wouldn't they? And before you start adopting features from Command & Conquer 3 (it's no coincidence that Dustin Browder worked on C&C3 before, which had a similar MBS system and is a horrendous game) you should PLAY these games that you are taking "features" from. I can PROMISE you that if you play Command & Conquer 3, you will not want these features anymore. It's not what you think it is, it ruins the game, please don't include it. This coming from a non-SC player who would actually benefit (on a competitive/professional level) from the inclusion of such features.
P.S. In Command & Conquer 3 there is a button that selects every military unit you control in the entire game. You really do not want this. Lazerflip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is very right. MBS and other features that might be added into SC2 will ruin it. That one feature by itself significantly closes the gap from top players to intermediate, etc. Add a couple more and you have another game that lasts 1 year and then dies in eSports because everyone is extremely good at it (again, take it from Lazerflip or anyone else that plays the 'other rts' competitively -- they're all ruined by easy buttons).
So both of you are prepared to say that if you took MBS, automine, and autocast for unit actions that did not require a player's judgement (like building interceptors for carriers), and any other SC2 interface "noobifiers" that I forgot to mention offhand out of Dawn of War, or C&C3, or WC3, that they would be just as competitive as SC? Unless you're prepared to back that statement, you haven't proven that the interface is the sole reason those games are uncompetitive, or even that it has a factor in such.
Honestly, iirc there are only two reasons that I agree with the anti-MBS side on why MBS/automine might negatively affect competitive gameplay:
1) It takes out the negative feedback loop in macro.
As you got more buildings in SC, the interface would make it progressively harder to order units. Therefore, the advantage you got from having more buildings was partially nullified by the increased difficulty of building them, thus giving the player behind an opportunity to catch back up. SC has a very large positive feedback loop, in that being significantly ahead in resources makes it very difficult for one's opponent to come back in the game, and so removing a mechanic that helps mitigate this effect and allow more comebacks is certainly important. However, in the highest levels of SC play most players have roughly equal macro mechanics, so this negative feedback loop is not very effective at that level anyways. I'd personally be more worried on its effect on lower-level games, as it makes errors or losses increasingly difficult to recoup; for example, losing a handful of workers to harrass is much more of a disadvantage with MBS enabled than without. However, if this turns out to be an issue, then we already have a couple of solutions handy: the 'one unit, one click' idea, and the 'selection within a certain radius' idea, to name two.
2) It takes out a considerable portion of multitasking, since you don't have to return to your base as often.
Personally, this is more of an issue with automining, because I think there's plenty of returning to your base to be done with MBS, as every time you want to change the composition of the units you're building from a building type you have to go back to your base and "shift-click, shift-click, shift-click...ctrl-#". However, if that's still not enough, keep in mind that even those who have played SC2 on these forums have played a considerably incomplete alpha version of SC2. Would you make judgements on SC as a game based on the SC alpha? There's still plenty of features and mechanics to come, some of which will likely bring SC2 multitasking back up on par with SC. If Blizzard doesn't do this, then some quick fixes would be to replace automining with an idle worker button, and MBS ideas like 'select but don't hotkey'.
Regardless, judging from these discussions I'm sure that if MBS is included in the final version of the game, no matter what form it is in or whether it affects the competitiveness of the game, that a certain percentage of SC veterans will hate its inclusion. For those people, I'd just like to point out that modding the engine so that it implements a SC1 interface is definitely possible (I'd say practically inevitable), as shown by Project Revolution, which did it for the WC3 engine; even easier, in fact, since it appears Blizzard is putting updated models of ALL the SC1 units in the level editor, thus only requiring a coder. Think of it as a 'CS promod' for SC2.
|
I consider it likey that Blizzard will include the original with SC2, or add it on in the inevitable expansion (since it'd be a good business decision).
|
Why don't people blame SC's shallow gameplay when it comes to lack of macro instead of an improved UI?
|
On September 28 2007 03:03 Fen wrote:
Ok, The best tennis players in the world can play tennis at a rediculously good level. The rest of the world cannot. Does this make tennis not fun? Of course not. Tennis is still enjoyed by millions around the world. You dont have to be top level players to have fun. A huge portion of games played on battlenet are BGH/FASTEST/UMS games, that are enjoyed by casual gamers. Gamers that wouldnt know how to go about locking down 10 carriers or running a 4 gas economy. But they still have heaps of fun.
The point im trying to make here is simple, as long as the game is fun, it will be loved. Having MBS or not will not effect this fun level at all. However having MBS WILL effect the competative scene, and therefore should be turned off.
you speak the truth man.... couldnt state it better myself.
whether or not mbs/automine will be implemented into sc2, there will be a ridiculous amount of people drawn to this franchise. why you ask? with the old school UI system that is so hard to use? because sc is a fucking amazing RTS game. there is no other game that compares with this on a competitive level. all the people (which isn't as much as other genres here in the us with MMORPGs and FPS), they will give it a shot. with the name of starcraft and blizzard behind this release, i dont think having a few features that make the game easier will hurt the industry at all. anyways, you all keep talking bout a need to draw in a vast amounts of new players to build a competitive scene, however, how many of these new players become pros? how many of them move on from playing the addictingly fun madness, defense, control, rpg, money maps and other more entertaining features from sc that doesn't require a pro level mechanic of the game? most dont, so appealing to the fucking reviewers of games who dont know jack shit about rts shouldn't be a factor when producing this game that has the perfect forumula of micro and macro.
to the people who said micro isn't important in sc.... WTF ARE YOU THINKING? in t v z late game, try losing all your science vessels due to a micro mistake in battle. say your marines are focus firing on zlings, lurks and mutas while 20 scourges fly in and destroy all ur vessels. THAN tell me that micro isnt important. or what bout losing your first reaver in p v t? BOTH micro and macro is an essential part of the game. dont try to just say that macro is the only important feature in sc... you are just exclaiming to everyone all these forums how much of a dumbass you are.
|
Instead of arguing about this narrow point that is MBS or any mechanism that EXECUTES, how about do a mental step-back and think of the OTHER elements of sc that made it what it is today? Surely there's more to sc than execution, since this is a strategy game as well! Some of you really attribute too much to the competitive aspect. Granted it is what made us care today, but the (potentially) added complexities of unit interactions and map dynamics for example, would (and dare I say should) change the feel of sc2 significantly from sc.
After all, this is a new game being made almost 10 years later. It is reasonable to expect the 'core' premise to remain true (IMHO, crisp unit AI, intuitive interface and useful tech-tree throughout) but at same time fans should open up to new possibilities, and with faith, hope that Bilizzard can complement the (Differences, NOTE, difference != worse) and come up with a BETTER game overall. As long as there will be Pimpest plays that feature innovative PLAYS (which is a combination of execution and thought) many years after the release, I'll be a happy camper).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
