On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design.
There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort.
Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that.
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does.
Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot.
I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it.
Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game.
But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while.
You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard.
Well, if you are talking about Aw]nevermind or whatever, assuming he's telling the truth about his War3 status.. Since being banned on TL he spends his time making troll topics on the battle.net forums (unless someone is using his name but eh, it sounds like him). I wouldn't really pay much heed to anything he has to say. I think he's an idiot -.-
Maybe I'm wrong and he's not but he's always been really annoying on here..
New poster here but long time fans of both War3 and SC...
Anyway, I think MBS or smart casting or other interface improvements will be IMHO the only option for SC2 if it is to uphold the name of its predecessor. The following are my reasons:
1. A smarter, more intuitive interface doesn't mean a dumber game. It might be easier to get in to, easier to learn, but as with all Blizzard games, it will still be very difficult to master. 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them. 3. For players of newer RTS games (War3, CoH etc.) and media people (who gives the ratings for this game), SC2 without the aforementioned UI improvements would seem to be a very huge step back. Which could lead to a number of unpleasant conclusions like: Blizzard released an unpolished game (which would be a first) and that the game is so 1998 (which I kinda agree with) 4. The amount of macro that SC players did was never optimal; with a rather gloomy point of view, one can say that the best SC players are those who macro less inefficiently. A more intuitive UI would definitely help gamers to be more efficient. The SC interface would be, in our context today, would be unnaturally limiting.
I'll add to this later as I'm at work right now. Feel free to reply, thanks.
I agree with everything you said xtian. But your points were brought up before and there's no convincing anyone otherwise. Everyone is set in their opinion, and we don't have a final product to see who's right, who's wrong, just an endless debate.
Also I think we need to stop imagining SC1 with SC2 interface. SC1 was build with the archaic interface in mind, while SC2 was build and is being balance completely around the new interface. Comparing and contrasting the two games is counter productive.
You can make a game as brilliant as it gets with smart spells, great unit variety, balance, huge amount of strategies... But if you don\'t add the actual \"syzyphic\" aspect which seperates someone who practices 20 hours from someone who practices 4 hours, it will pretty fast Reach a deadly balance where too many people are on the top and people will lose interest.
The game needs to give you the feeling that you are climbing a huge mountain. There are quite a lot of people here that understand nearly all the aspects of the game. But they are still amazingly far away from the highest levels. And this is what makes it a sport.
If you think that \"understanding\" and \"thinking\" is the only aspect a game should focus around and that banal things like clicking 1a2a3a 4t5t6t or remembering to tell your scvs to mine should be left out. You should understand that in game like this legends like BoxeR or NaDa could never rise.
The difference between knowing what you need to do and actually getting there is what makes people practice SC, analyze their replays etc.. Eliminating things like this so people \"don\'t need to worry about them\" will make it easier to get good at the game but also ruin it in the long run.
On October 01 2007 19:20 Locke. wrote: Good post nony.
You can make a game as brilliant as it gets with smart spells, great unit variety, balance, huge amount of strategies... But if you don\'t add the actual \"syzyphic\" aspect which seperates someone who practices 20 hours from someone who practices 4 hours, it will pretty fast Reach a deadly balance where too many people are on the top and people will lose interest.
The game needs to give you the feeling that you are climbing a huge mountain. There are quite a lot of people here that understand nearly all the aspects of the game. But they are still amazingly far away from the highest levels. And this is what makes it a sport.
If you think that \"understanding\" and \"thinking\" is the only aspect a game should focus around and that banal things like clicking 1a2a3a 4t5t6t or remembering to tell your scvs to mine should be left out. You should understand that in game like this legends like BoxeR or NaDa could never rise.
The difference between knowing what you need to do and actually getting there is what makes people practice SC, analyze their replays etc.. Eliminating things like this so people \"don\'t need to worry about them\" will make it easier to get good at the game but also ruin it in the long run.
But then, how can grubby and moon be so much better than most other wc3 pro's if there is no skill differentiation at the high levels in that game? Wouldnt you have hundreds of people competing for the first price that were roughly the same skill and it would be around random on who won?
But instead its the same peoples going for the top over and over. And even then wc3 is a much easier game than sc2 ever will be.
On October 01 2007 21:55 Aphelion wrote: Actually, according to Tasteless Grubby did complain that wc3 devolves into randomness too much, simply because players can play too perfectly.
Yup, but still its the same few persons that comes out on top. Warcraft 3 plucked away a TON of what made starcraft competetive, starcraft 2 will preserve much more of that and it will scrap all the randomness warcraft 3 put into the genre.
Then we can conclude that there will still be a few pros much better than the others and can have a ranking even at the top of the top, you wont have thousands of people on about the same skill that all competes for the top.
Warcraft 3 went a bit to far, i agree on that, but starcraft 2 will not have the randomness or the lack of strategy or the lack of harras or the lack of ambushes or the lack of terrain advantages or the lack of army importance.
Hmm, maybe people are overly afraid of any "Noobifications" after what blizzard did to warcraft 3? I can almost guarantee that it wont have an as big impact on the game wich most anti mbs persons believe, you will fight/defend more than before and you will click buildings less. The skill will be shifted a bit, it wont be gone and we will still have large skill differentiations between the players.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Protoss in SC2 currently has 14 units These are the Probe, Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, High templar, Dark templar, Archon, Collossus, Observer, Phase Prism, Phoenix, Warp Ray, Carrier, Mothership
In the original Starcraft Protoss had 14 Probe, Zealot, Goon, High templar, Dark templar, Archon, Dark Archon, Shuttle, Reaver, Observer, Scout, Corsair, Carrier, Arbitar
Going by what blizzard said about keeping the same numbers of units, I doubt the protoss army will be changed much until release.
Currently, In SC2, 3 Protoss units will have more than 1 spell (High templar, Mothership, Archon), and 4 units have a single spell/ability (Phoenix, Stalker, Phase Prism, Carrier)
In SC1, Protoss had 3 Spellcaster units (High templar, Dark Archon, Arbitar), and 3 units with an active ability (Corsair, Carrier, Reaver)
New protoss mechanics over SC1 are, Ability for cannons to move. Warp gates being able to warp new units across the map.
So what awsome new features that will take up soo much of everyones time are being implemented so far? Protoss have 1 new spell, the ability to move their cannons around, and Warp gates. The question is, are these actions going to require the large amounts of time that macro usually took up to use? I think not.
If blizzard implements some new ideas or units or something, then we change how we discuss the game. However we cannot just say "oh blizzard will add something". The anti-MBS people look at the current state of the game and say, look this is no good and something must be done. If blizzard comes out tommorrow and shows us a crazy new gameplay mechanic, we'll change our opinions and form them around what we have then seen about SC2. However you must judge the game on what is there, not what we are hoping will be there when its done, especially when we have heard no news from blizzard about new mechanics.
Well Fen, the way I look at it, we should not expect to know. The balance in SC2 will be new. This means the matchups will be foreign to us and can vary at least as much as any matchups in RTS.
Imagine, if you will, the level of demand on players for each of the following matchups:
ZvZ ZvT ZvP TvT TvP PvP
Are any of these "too easy to play perfectly?" Would any of these still be good if MBS was added?
Now ask yourself, do you know what SC2's 6 matchups will be like? The answer is "no." They could all be of the same pace and quality of, ANY of the above 6, not to mention other games or past SC or BW balances--not to mention maps. Therefore it remains to be seen whether SC2 "needs" MBS or not. You are talking about the amount of casters, but I don't think we can predict how a matchup plays out based on number of casters. Try doing that to predict something meaningful about SCBW's matchups. It doesn't work. So why should your method work on equating SCBW and SC2? It shouldn't.
SC2 is a new game, with matchups we don't know, maps we don't know, which may already be demanding more or less macro than any matchup of SCBW on any given map.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
There are so many things wrong with ths post it hurts my head.
On October 01 2007 17:10 xtian15 wrote: 2. The influx of more skills, spells etc. to SC2 units will require a more efficient interface to have a better control over them.
Ok im going to debate this point because it seems to be the basis of most of the pro-MBS people. Over and over again I keep seeing, SC2 will have more features more spells more macro options and therefore MBS will be needed else the game will be too hard. I like to work with the facts. And here they are:
Facts: 1:Starcraft 2 will most probably have more units than starcraft, toss still have more units since you forgot the stasis orb.
2: Casters were hardly used to their full potential, casters are theoretically extremely strong units but since they take so much time to use noone builds more than a handfull of them. In starcraft 2 we can see more casters due to people having more time and casters needing less.
3: Starcraft had a lot of semi useless spells, it seem slike starcraft 2 will fix this wich effectively more than doubbles the viable spells aviable to the player.
4: Zealots charge is microable due to it having a cooldown so you dont always want to trigger it, this together with the micro of stalkers will make the core toss army having specials while the core toss army were just a-move units in sc1.
5: A lot of units/spells were redundant in many of the matchups making the game easier, if we make more units viable in each matchup the game skill factor will go up.
6: With less time on macro you will have more time to harras your opponent, meaning that he will have to spend more time on turrets/defense than before. The more expos you have the easier its to harras and harder its to defend, creating the same "Larger base is harder to manage" as before. A noob wont be able to have 4 bases at once since he will lose them to fast since his micro/strategy/multitasking isnt enough to defend them all, and on top of that keeping up and killing your expos will be impossible for him in that situation.
There are so many things wrong with ths post it hurts my head.
Can you point them out? saying something like this is just trolling and doesnt contribute anything at all.
1. A few more units for a race won't do much at all. Blizzard does say they want to keep it roughly the same anyways, give or take.
2. Its good that casters should not be used to their full potential. Otherwise it would be ordinary. SC should not be a spell slinging game.
3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
4. Not all micro is fancy effects with a button. Have you seen free[gm] micro goon zeal? Its fucking insane. Step drag vs mines, moving shot by zealots vs lings. A combination of basic movement and attack can yield incredible results. Even most pros can't do it.
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Edit: My biggest problem with your post is that you are over enthused by flash, and don't appreciate the beauty and subtley behind the mundane tasks of BW. You know what my sig comes from? Let me show you this highlight of Garimto: no flashy lights or fancy explosions, just good, hardcore manly multitasking and micro:
On October 01 2007 22:48 Fen wrote: So what awsome new features that will take up soo much of everyones time are being implemented so far? Protoss have 1 new spell, the ability to move their cannons around, and Warp gates. The question is, are these actions going to require the large amounts of time that macro usually took up to use?
All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
I think not.
Think twice
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
Wrong. Spell usage will significantly increase and SC is that kind of game. Look at amount of crappy (especially compared to psi-storm) spells in SC. Even Protoss alone - hallucination, feedback, maelstrom, mind control, d-web (for the company). When player use most of them in one game -- heck, even when simply adds DArchon in unit mix -- match easily become more spectacular, when according to you it shouldn't.
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
When one of every unit requires different type of control it does equal more skill. And again wrong! >_< All units should be viable in all matchups - that's the perfect balance which is aim of Blizz. What differs is units' roles. Look at PvP, PvZ and PvT. Mostly same units for Protoss with little exceptions, but matchups aren't same, cause for example role of HT and Reaver changes with match-ups.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Importance of macro does not reduce. MBS doesn't suddenly removes advantage of the bigger economy >_> Harass is important even in WC3, where economy doesn't play huge part.
Edit: My biggest problem with your post is that you are over enthused by flash, and don't appreciate the beauty and subtley behind the mundane tasks of BW. You know what my sig comes from? Let me show you this highlight of Garimto: no flashy lights or fancy explosions, just good, hardcore manly multitasking and micro
By the way, reminds me a bit - every pro now can micro like Garimto, game still awesome, right?
On October 02 2007 00:01 InRaged wrote: All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
Nothing you have said there indicates that there will be anything extra that will replace macro apart from Warpgates, which I already noted. I can spout on about the graphical wonders of the collossus and how its gorgeous lasers cut through enemys like a hot knife through butter. Doesnt mean that the collossus now counters macro. Read what youve read again because you havent even answered the question.
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
Wrong. Spell usage will significantly increase and SC is that kind of game. Look at amount of crappy (especially compared to psi-storm) spells in SC. Even Protoss alone - hallucination, feedback, maelstrom, mind control, d-web (for the company). When player use most of them in one game -- heck, even when simply adds DArchon in unit mix -- match easily become more spectacular, when according to you it shouldn't.
Actually Aphelions logic would mean that when added specialised spellcasters to the game it DOES become more exciting because they are not commonly used. Spellcasters in SC1 were situational and deadly, but damn dangerous to use (Large costs, Vunrable, Sheer difficulty to execute manouvers). So when they came out it made the game really tense. If spells are going the way they look like they are going, spells are going to be about as exciting as they are in warcraft 3 (ever heard a commentator being wow'ed by someones ability to polymorph an army in warcraft 3? Its pretty standard)
5. Unit choice should differ with matchups. This gives each matchups a flavor, or they would all feel the same. With the discover of dominant strategies, its only natural that certain unit combos would be favored in matchups. A TvZ army should look and handle differently from a TvT army. Building one of every unit doesn't equal more skill.
And again wrong! >_< All units should be viable in all matchups - that's the perfect balance which is aim of Blizz. What differs is units' roles. Look at PvP, PvZ and PvT. Mostly same units for Protoss with little exceptions, but matchups aren't same, cause for example role of HT and Reaver changes with match-ups.
So you would rather watch and play games that follow the same tech tree, regardless of the race of your opponent. One of the most exciting things about starcraft is that a PvZ plays totally different to a PvT and Likewise again totally different to a PvP. It really looks to me like you dont think before posting.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Importance of macro does not reduce. MBS doesn't suddenly removes advantage of the bigger economy >_> Harass is important even in WC3, where economy doesn't play huge part.
Harrassment disrupts your gameplay. It causes you to focus heavily on the units that are attacking your base/mineral lines/Units. When your focussing everything you have on them, your less likely to to go back to your base to tell drones to mine, your less likely to go back to your barracks and build more units. It works because there are manual dexterity tasks required in macro, and you cannot perform these tasks when your forced to micro against a harrass.
So you would rather watch and play games that follow the same tech tree, regardless of the race of your opponent. One of the most exciting things about starcraft is that a PvZ plays totally different to a PvT and Likewise again totally different to a PvP. It really looks to me like you dont think before posting.
No, you think.
Just beacuse all units are viable dont mean that the same tech options are viable and it certainly doesnt mean that the units are as viable/common to be seen in all matchups. If all matchups used as many units as the toss in their matchups the game would overall get harder since its harder to micro diverse armies and its also harder to macro diverse tech trees.
Ideally all units should be viable in all matchups, meaning that they have an important use, not meaning that they must be used every time in that matchup though.
On October 02 2007 00:41 Fen wrote: Harrassment disrupts your gameplay. It causes you to focus heavily on the units that are attacking your base/mineral lines/Units. When your focussing everything you have on them, your less likely to to go back to your base to tell drones to mine, your less likely to go back to your barracks and build more units. It works because there are manual dexterity tasks required in macro, and you cannot perform these tasks when your forced to micro against a harrass.
No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
However since expanding is easier people will have more expansions making it easier to harrass and thus more powerfull to harrass, and also harder to defend vs the harrass.
On October 02 2007 00:45 Klockan3 wrote: No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
The attacker should still have the advantage. He gets to call the shots. He chooses when he moves his units in. He can free up time by backing off for a second. He is also at the advantage where he can do damage when he is successful so the other player MUST focus on defense while he can half-ass his harrass
On October 01 2007 23:31 Aphelion wrote: 1. A few more units for a race won't do much at all. Blizzard does say they want to keep it roughly the same anyways, give or take.
2. Its good that casters should not be used to their full potential. Otherwise it would be ordinary. SC should not be a spell slinging game.
3. Good, but the spell usage shouldn't significantly increase. SC simply isn't that kind of game. Spells should remain difficult to use and spectacular, and there will be a cost of getting spellcasters you can't handle.
4. Not all micro is fancy effects with a button. Have you seen free[gm] micro goon zeal? Its fucking insane. Step drag vs mines, moving shot by zealots vs lings. A combination of basic movement and attack can yield incredible results. Even most pros can't do it.
6. With less time on macro harassing will be less important, because the thing about harass is what it does to the enemy's macro ability. And you still forget - SC is a macro game. SC2 should remain that way.
Hmm. Number 1 is correct. However, what is your basis when you say that casters shouldn't be used to their full potential? Define "ordinary". Sure, Psi Storm would be very strong if SC has smart casting, however, one must take into account that it was designed that way partly because of the interface which prevents its abuse. With that in mind, I don't think that blizzard intended the interface to be limiting or to be a hindrance to the players. The SCBW interface was the class of the world by that time, same with War3/FT and surely in SC2, blizzard would yet again trump the interface of War3. It's just the same with War2 and SCBW and a lot of people complained because of the UI improvements that SC brings to the table would somehow "noobify" SC.
Spells should be spectacular, if used right in the proper context. Not because "Psi Storm is so strong because you cannot just instruct a group of 12 Templars to fire Psi Storms in 12 different areas at the same time because it is just not possible with the interface. The argument that spells should be spectacular because you'll need godly micro to have it reach maximum potential is IMHO a load of BS. Spells shouldn't be limited by a (for lack of a better term) "dumb" interface but by the ability of your opponent to respond to your spell or by your ability to use the spell correctly. Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
On October 02 2007 00:01 InRaged wrote: All macro that goes away is "pop back to your base every 20 seconds" to click at factories and send workers to minerals. Even without all these features Starcraft itself offers tons of actions that can easily replace "skill that goes away", but anyway let's count again. Warp gates are exactly "clicking at gateways" turned into thoughtful process instead of pure mechanical. We have gold minerals witch increase speed of Macro machine, but you should fight for them. We have cliff-jumping units which increase importance of scouting. And if Blizzard pull of "perfect balance" or at least better one than Brood War one, we'd get tons of new ways in which we should develop our skill.
Nothing you have said there indicates that there will be anything extra that will replace macro apart from Warpgates, which I already noted. I can spout on about the graphical wonders of the collossus and how its gorgeous lasers cut through enemys like a hot knife through butter. Doesnt mean that the collossus now counters macro. Read what youve read again because you havent even answered the question.
Oh my... There is no need to replace Macro, since clicking at barracks and sending workers to minerals is just a part of mechanical skill of the Macro. All what goes away is the Part of the macro (I won't say how big is that part since people like nitpicking about that). If they balance warp-gates properly and it'll become a must to use them in mid-late phase, than, at least for Protoss, auto-mining and MBS will be fully justified. And, the heck? You don't see how different income from different locations makes macro more complicated? You don't see how importance of constant scouting and controlling ways to your base will increase, with units that can freely jump over cliffs? You don't see how better unit balance will force you to put more attention in your unit choice and in scouting enemy's unit choice, instead of spamming pure marines or tanks whole game? If that's not mechanical for you - look at the terran's addon system. It's not me who didn't answered the question, it's you who believes that the only way to return "skill" taken away with MBS is to drop MBS from game to Hell.
Actually Aphelions logic would mean that when added specialised spellcasters to the game it DOES become more exciting because they are not commonly used. Spellcasters in SC1 were situational and deadly, but damn dangerous to use (Large costs, Vunrable, Sheer difficulty to execute manouvers). So when they came out it made the game really tense. If spells are going the way they look like they are going, spells are going to be about as exciting as they are in warcraft 3 (ever heard a commentator being wow'ed by someones ability to polymorph an army in warcraft 3? Its pretty standard)
That seems like you don't get what I said or screwing up meaning on purpose just for the sake of winning discussion. What's harder to control: Psi-storm+Stasis field or Psi-storm+Stasis field+Hallucination+Feedback+Maelstrom+D-Web and so on. With better balance of spells players will use more of them and to be successful you will have to use as much as possible and that's deeper skill than clicking at factories.
On October 02 2007 00:45 Klockan3 wrote: No, since the harrasser uses the same amounth of time so they cancels out.
The attacker should still have the advantage. He gets to call the shots. He chooses when he moves his units in. He can free up time by backing off for a second. He is also at the advantage where he can do damage when he is successful so the other player MUST focus on defense while he can half-ass his harrass
whatta... Try to half-ass muta/DT/HT/Reaver harass. Both must focus, heck, even marine drop or vulture/zergling slip should be controlled or harasser rather screw himself than get advantage.
On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote: Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks....
Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch.
Actually, I hope you won't discuss sc2 anymore and stick to broodwar if you think That will destroy progaming.
EPT
