|
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
What new RTS games have such skilled, competitive players? You speak as though there is this great pool of competitive players that require MBS and automining, but who are they? SC has been at WCG for years now as other RTS's come and go. The competition level for non-SC and non-WC3 RTS's is low.
The fact that most RTS's have failed is absolutely not due to MBS and automining. There are many more obvious reasons for their apparent lack of longevity. The primary reason why almost every other RTS does not reach the level of success of Blizzard's is because they are not made with as much love and care. Blizzard puts much thought into every aspect of their RTS franchise, and spends an enormous time designing, redesigning, balancing, and again rebalancing until they are completely and utterly satisfied with their work. You should all know this by now and can see it in their design process for SC2. Imbalances and exploits are even patched for years AFTER the game is released to keep gameplay continually fresh. No other company in existence does this.
Every other RTS from every other company released so far (excluding mirror races) have major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix technical issues, and rarely address gameplay. This is a problem, because any large imbalance in a strategy game immediately causes the strategical game metatype to become entirely one dimensional (this has even happened after many years to several matchups in SC to an extent: ZvZ, TvT). People start building the same mix of units every game, because it is the strongest/most effective/least counterable.
However, the fact that strategies are still evolving in SC even after TEN years is a testament to how well balanced Blizzard designed SC. I do not believe this is luck, but more of a product of hard work and talent. In this area SC also outshines War3, as many matchups became strategically stale in only a few years (not completely Blizzard's fault either since 4 races + heroes are MUCH harder to balance than 3 races with only units)
Finally, again my main point is that just because a feature is common to games of recent years that do not achieve the same success as SC, does NOT mean that this feature is intrinsically bad. I'm sure this has been brought up a ton of times in another thread called "Just because it's in War3, doesn't mean it sucks". For example, no reasonable person is going to argue that better cinematics (common to most games now) is a bad thing just because it's in all these games that do suck. This is simply an industry standard, in the same way that MBS/automining is now an RTS standard. If you don't have this feature, MOST people are not going to be pleased. That is a simple truth.
We should be instead focusing on ways to make up for the addition of MBS/automining with additional macro ideas rather than opposing its inclusion into SC2, because we might actually profoundly improve the game as a result of our ideas. How fucking awesome would it be, if one of YOUR ideas was implemented into SC2, the game that millions of people will be playing worldwide?
I am fairly sure (90%, I'll take bets) that Blizzard will end up implementing MBS/automining regardless of what we say, since it is definitely in THEIR best interests to do so (financially, and to increase a loyal fanbase by attracting new players). They are not making the game JUST for the hardcore crowd (probably <5% of the market), because the majority will always come first. They will take our opinions into account, but this is one area where I think there is no reason whatsoever for them to compromise.
|
On September 09 2007 13:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +
In game design theory, the opposite of fun is frustration; if a player is frustrated by something in the game which they feel is the fault of the game, not them, they are not having fun. Removing elements of the game that frustrate players (which they feel is the game's fault) is just as much an improvement to a game as adding elements that make it more fun, as both increase the net amount of "fun". Now, think back to when you were first playing SC. Weren't you frustrated at the time by how the game made you rotely perform the simplest actions, and how dumb the AI was at times? (Incidentally, if you had fun in this when you were just starting out, I'd say either there were no other games with a better interface out or you were enjoying it in the masochistic sense, which is actually considered a component of fun by certain game theory scholars; either way, they are irrelevant to the argument I'm constructing) Now, however, you are comfortable with having to deal with the UI, and you revel in how your mastery of the UI makes you better than your peers at SC. Therefore, you view having to do these actions as fun, and therefore enriching your game experience, and after 9 years no one could say you were wrong in your subjective view. However, the fact stands that before you got used to the UI because the rest of the game was so good, you were frustrated by it, and therefore not having fun. This is why Blizzard is simplifying the interface, to remove the parts of SC that caused frustration in people originally experiencing the game, not because they feel controlling your army is more fun than other aspects of the game. The problem is, after 9 years those who got comfortable with the interface now view the fact that the interface makes you do even the most basic tasks as fun, and naturally object to the "noobification" of the interface.
When I first played SC I had no opinions on the interface really, I think I liked total annihilation better (this was like almost 10 years ago, I was 9 or something), probably because it was easier to mass at metal maps  When I first started playing SC for real, I didn't care about the interface at all, and when I moved to BW I'd seen the progamer vods so I was determined to get good at 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z - which I viewed as a really cool skill. Meh, basically - before I played seriously, it didn't bother me, once I started playing seriously (2002) I thought it was cool. Note that when I first played it in 1998, the only other RTSes I'd played were.. Hm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation and age of empires. When I played money maps in 2001 I don't remember ever being frustrated by the interface.. Not on hunters eithers. When I played LT in 2002 I, as I said, already knew of the pro-scene.
Good point, but keep in mind that 1) the other RTSs played by people coming into SC2 will be of the likes of WC3, SupCom, Company of Heroes, etc. SC was actually easier to use than the interfaces of its contemporaries, while it is much more difficult to use than the interfaces of current RTSs; and 2) if SC2 keeps the SC interface, noobs will be in a different situation than you were in, as there will already be a considerable segment of the community who's far more used to the interface than they are, and it's inevitable that some of them will rub that fact in the noob's faces, repeatedly.
|
On September 09 2007 13:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf wrote:
NonY has a very good counterargument, I think that MBS should not be included in the game. The game should be a game that's easy to learn, fun to play, but hard to master and understand all the aspects of it. If the game is easy to learn, lacking an MBS should not deter players. There are many other options for what NonY called the 'extra players', UMS of course, such as defense games or bound games or whatever, and of course the map editor will be very powerful for those types of games this time around seeing how the WC3 editor was very good. The only people I can see that will want MBS is fastest map players.
So, in conclusion it does not matter whether Starcraft 2 gets bad reviews or not, no matter what it gets, people will buy the game and play it, and many people will have fun with it. If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think that if many thousands of people can still enjoy UMS in Broodwar and Warcraft 3, which don't have MBS, they will still be able to enjoy UMS in Starcraft 2, and possibly even switch over to the progaming scene just as many people do. I think a game having "9/10, pc gamer game of the year" sells a lot of copies when parents are looking for christmas gifts and what not. Shouldn't underestimate the importance of good reviews.. When I first played SC I had no opinions on the interface really, I think I liked total annihilation better (this was like almost 10 years ago, I was 9 or something), probably because it was easier to mass at metal maps When I first started playing SC for real, I didn't care about the interface at all, and when I moved to BW I'd seen the progamer vods so I was determined to get good at 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z - which I viewed as a really cool skill. Meh, basically - before I played seriously, it didn't bother me, once I started playing seriously (2002) I thought it was cool. Note that when I first played it in 1998, the only other RTSes I'd played were.. Hm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation and age of empires. When I played money maps in 2001 I don't remember ever being frustrated by the interface.. Not on hunters eithers. When I played LT in 2002 I, as I said, already knew of the pro-scene.
This is true. That's because at that time, people including me and you weren't spoiled by the improved UI of other RTS's yet. Like I said it wasn't an industry standard then, so most people did not mind.
Things are totally different now. I can guarantee you that Gamespot will tear apart SC2 like they do to many high budget sequels of popular games that do not innovate enough.
|
|
|
Damn, orange, you keep on saying exactly what I'm thinking when I want to reply, so I don't have anything to reply with!
One quickie, though:
On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it.
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
|
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:
Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike.
A lot of people actually seemed to complain that the game wasn't enough like the original in terms of throwing large numbers of enemies at you at once. I actually liked it, but your point that sticking to a previously-loved formula is no guarantee of a good reception for a new game is correct.
|
I've been saying this before SC2 was even released. The thing is, SC2 should have enough strategical depth and multitasking that even if MBS and auto-mine existed, there would be plenty of room otherwise for players to differentiate in skill.
Even with BW as it is now, the lack of MBS and AM puts an artificial limitation on the skill of progamers. Their APM can handle only so much while constantly cycling through production buildings and expos. Top players would be constantly moving around with their armies and playing even better if they didn't have to constantly babysit all that other stuff.
Given even more options in SC2, I'm pretty sure there'll always be enough to keep players busy.
|
On September 09 2007 11:01 MyLostTemple wrote:
How do easy interfaces help encourage esports? They don't.
...
Many people thought that Counter strike wouldn't be a successful esport when it was in it's very early stages because players could die so fast and had to wait until the end of the round to respawn. As it turns out people LOVE watching this game and LOVE playing this game.
It's ironic that you use a prime example of a game that has succeeded as an e-sport in part BECAUSE it has an 'easy interface'. Virtually every action in CS can be accomplished in a single mouseclick or keystroke, or bound to a single keystroke in the case of buying stuff at the beginning of a round. The challenge is in the movement, the aiming, the strategies, and the teamwork, to name four things. It's in a large part because of this 'easy interface' that CS has such a ginormous competitive community, which in turn fuels its professional status. Sure, it's an FPS and SC is an RTS, but the principle remains the same: an interface should allow players to complete any game action in as few keystrokes/clicks as possible. It's for this reason that I support the idea in the 'MBS solutions' thread to keep MBS, but make it '5zzzzz' instead of '5z', as for every zealot I want I only have to click 'z' (after I selected my gates with '5').
Another example of a popular e-sports game that has an easy interface is KartRider. Granted, the fact that it's even more popular in Korea than SC has something to do with its e-sports status, but it takes the up, down, left, right, and shift keys and makes a game that's really easy to get into, but ridiculously difficult to master.
Oh, and before anyone brings up this particular genre, the counter-example among fighting games would be Super Smash Bros. Melee.
|
On September 09 2007 12:11 Superiorwolf wrote:
If there is MBS, Starcraft 2 may get good reviews, HOWEVER, the progaming scene would generate much less revenue than now. The pros are pretty much what has kept Starcraft alive for this long and kept making money from the game (UMS applies too though), and if the game is oversimplified then Starcraft 2 cannot last long.
I think you have this concept a bit backwards. It is not the "pros" that have kept Starcraft alive, but in fact the fans that have kept the "pros" alive by popularizing SC in the first place. Next, their continued support by watching their games on TV, buying merchandise, attending live games, etc generates ad revenue so that companies will sponsor progamers that play the best. Without any fan support, the whole economy immediately collapses, and pro-gaming dies in under a month. The fans are the sole reason why the pros can wear their fancy SK-T1 and KTF jackets, and live a fancy life while playing games for a living. If the pros suddenly decided to stop playing, new pros would quickly emerge from the fanbase to replace them in due time, but it is easily recoverable.
Why do you think the Koreans are so highly skilled and successful at SC? It's because Korea built up a ginormous SC fanbase in the late 90s, which may or may not have been a fluke (debatable) due to their economy that turned PC-bangs into SC gaming centers. Remember how Euro players could even play on par with the Korean players during early SC? They weren't always the SC monsters that they are now. Along with any large player base, highly skilled players come out naturally due to competition among themselves. The key point to all of this is that, if you want to form a successful pro-gaming scene, you must first attract as many fans to the game as possible. Skill inevitably will reveal itself as long as there is prolonged interest in the game.
This is why it is of utmost importance for SC2 to attract as many newbs to the game as it is possible. The pros should never come first when making any game design choice, unless Blizzard is just trying to be nice and is buying our love. Don't take this statement the wrong way. If it's possible to make a decision that will benefit both sides (e.g. adding strategical depth, better balancing of matchups), or will improve the game for one side, while not affecting the other side or only minorly inconveniencing them (e.g. adding customizable hotkeys for the pros, adding a tutorial to the campaign for the noobs, but allowing you the choice to skip it), then of course it's a good thing.
However, if the decision is going to cause major upsets to a potential new fanbase (i.e. ditching MBS/automining), while also affecting a portion of the pros, then Blizzard would be foolish to go ahead with it, unless a compromise can be reached that will please both sides. You have to realize that Blizzard's #1 priority as a game developer is to please their customers, and the newbies make up far more than the pros. The key to Blizzard's unique success in RTS's is that they have more often catered to BOTH sides than other developers, by making the game both easy to pick up and difficult to master at the same time. They've also given us a ton of extra little things like patches, free maps, etc, that people often take for granted, which gives them a good rep and a loyal fanbase.
So now, as the "loyal SC fanbase", we should have a duty to think of new ways for this compromise to work out instead of fighting their decision, because it's almost guaranteed that Blizzard will end up implementing MBS/automining. They might say its still up in the air, but if they're not dumb and Vivendi has anything to say, it's just white lies to please the SC fans.
Any new ways to use our apm in realistic macro-related areas without introducing artificial UI limitations into the game (e.g. Warpgates are a good start) are welcome. If just one person out of the hundreds out there has a brilliant idea in their mind, we might be able to make SC2 a better game.
|
On September 09 2007 15:17 orangedude wrote:
This is to everyone on TL.net. Stop trying to fight the inevitable and use your brain to come up with new ways to use our apm in realistic macro-related areas without introducing artificial UI limitations into the game (e.g. Warpgates are a good start), instead of wasting energy arguing for no end result. If just one person out of the hundreds out there has a brilliant idea in their mind, we might be able to make SC2 a better game.
Fuck off. There isn't a website out there that knows more about SC gameplay than TL net does. If this is your mentality, you should stop posting here.
|
wtf. Where did I say that you people don't know about gameplay? I just said to stop pointless arguments. You're just starting up another one right here.
Edit:
Crap, I just realized that I actually misphrased that part pretty badly without thinking about it. That message was actually directed to both sides (i.e. Everyone on TL.net), and that argument BETWEEN the two is a waste of energy (e.g. the 20 pages of junk), because nothing will ever get resolved. Even if the anti-MBS side is right, or if the pro-MBS side is right, it won't matter because IMO Blizzard will implement it regardless. Thus, it's better to that effort to try to come up with ideas instead. I was not trying to belittle any one side's points. My bad.
|
Its not a fucking pointless argument. There are very legitimate points by veteran forum goers and top foreign players why MBS should not be included. Its by no means a goddamn conclusion that MBS will be included or anything can replace the "boring macro".
|
Okay, I'll take that last part back then. I wasn't forcing anyone to stop, just making a suggestion.
Go for it then. The problem is that both sides are totally set in their ways, and thats how we got 17 pages of filler. Their reasons aren't pointless, but having both sides locked in an endless argument sure is.
I said it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that Blizzard will implement MBS. If you don't agree with my above post, then post why. Never said macro is boring.
|
Starcraft is Starcraft, it doesn't need anything to draw people in other than it's name. People who have no RTS experience know of Starcraft and those who want to try out a RTS will try out SC2. I have many friends who never played a single RTS before and are already telling me they're excited about SC2 (from the game play demos and the intro video). Keep in mind these are casual gamers, they don't look for specific stuff dealing with the system mechanics because they don't know any better. They're infinitely more attracted to good graphics, a good storyline/campaign, good music, and other things rather than a little thing called multiple building selection. Not having multiple building selection will most definitely not reduce the amount of people who will try out SC2.
People who are serious about competitive gaming won't really care about not having multiple building selection either. The competitiveness of a game will depend more on ease of matchmaking and the actual depth of the game. If people can find good competition and the game is enjoyable enough (and deep enough) to continue learning (and practicing), then the game will have potential to thrive at the e-sport level.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 09 2007 13:29 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote:
I agree with Nony's post 100%. Starcraft's UI is a blank canvass on which the player creates art. Adding MBS and automining takes much of the fun and competitiveness out of the game. so essentially
Sc2 (with MBS)
Sc1
In summation... you can still have a good time coloring within the lines - but it's nothing compared to the fun and satisfaction of creating a piece of art
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 09 2007 14:56 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 11:01 MyLostTemple wrote:
How do easy interfaces help encourage esports? They don't.
...
Many people thought that Counter strike wouldn't be a successful esport when it was in it's very early stages because players could die so fast and had to wait until the end of the round to respawn. As it turns out people LOVE watching this game and LOVE playing this game.
It's ironic that you use a prime example of a game that has succeeded as an e-sport in part BECAUSE it has an 'easy interface'. Virtually every action in CS can be accomplished in a single mouseclick or keystroke, or bound to a single keystroke in the case of buying stuff at the beginning of a round. The challenge is in the movement, the aiming, the strategies, and the teamwork, to name four things. It's in a large part because of this 'easy interface' that CS has such a ginormous competitive community, which in turn fuels its professional status. Sure, it's an FPS and SC is an RTS, but the principle remains the same: an interface should allow players to complete any game action in as few keystrokes/clicks as possible. It's for this reason that I support the idea in the 'MBS solutions' thread to keep MBS, but make it '5zzzzz' instead of '5z', as for every zealot I want I only have to click 'z' (after I selected my gates with '5'). Another example of a popular e-sports game that has an easy interface is KartRider. Granted, the fact that it's even more popular in Korea than SC has something to do with its e-sports status, but it takes the up, down, left, right, and shift keys and makes a game that's really easy to get into, but ridiculously difficult to master. Oh, and before anyone brings up this particular genre, the counter-example among fighting games would be Super Smash Bros. Melee.
IMO MBS is sort of like Auto-aim. Although this might be a poor example, given that I don't play FPS 
I think most serious - PC - FPSers look down on auto-aim no?
I don't like the idea of having to press go 5zzzz because then how will you know if you've filled up all your gateways or not (or does the display jump to the next one everytime you build)? Oh and kart rider has a somewhat different demographic.. namely everyone. Isn't the type of game that anyone can play, ie you play it for 15 minutes during coffee break or after you get home from first grade school.
|
I think one thing that needs to be said is this: Whether or not Blizzard uses MBS or any other feature is irrelevant, what matter is that you keep the "options" as limited as possible. Think about the most successful game compared to starcraft. That would be counter-strike. What makes its wildly popular is that everyone does the same thing, there isn't a setting if you're a "proplayer" you all do the same thing whether its a pub, a scrim, a match, or whatever. Sure one is more structured than the other, but you can't have multiple things being options such as the scenario,"They can start out playing the game in the "noob" version and then when they become good, if they become good, they can take away the noob-friendly features." No that's a bunch of bs and is a horrible idea, it complicates the game. Think about quake, everyone plays on the same version even if its a competitive mod to do so. Its not half the people doing one thing and the other half doing another. Let the map differences be the determining factour, not silly things like multiple building selection. Heck, I bet if SC didn't have ctrl groups for multiple units you guys would think it'd be a good idea to keep it out of SC2.
Be reasonable, realistic, and keep it simple.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
I thinks many people miss the point about interface features completely.
It's not about who clicks faster. It's not about who can perform mundane tasks faster. No. The point of competetive StarCraft is about "everything counts". Taking advantage in everything makes you victorious in the end. The point about playing good StarCraft is all about getting to maximum possible effeciency. What does that mean? That means that if you have two ways of doing something, for example, an "easy" way and a "hard" way, and "hard" is like 2% more efficient than "easy" that is what will happen:
- Medicore players will go the "easy" way and keep being mediocre. They will however, keep in pace with the game and will learn.
- Good players will go the "hard" way no matter if it takes 10x the actions needed just because it gives them the advantage. The magnitude of that advantage hardly has any effect, it's only important that the advantage exists.
Common examples:
- Worker spread.
- Worker rally to unoccupied minerals.
- Sending workers to build buildings "in advance" (i.e. slightly before than you have the amount of minerals needed)
- Many other features of this kind.
Now these don't win games. If you don't do a spread but keep playing good you will triumph over an inferior player nevertheless. But on the high level everything counts and, given everything other equal, the player who does these things will triumph over a player who doesn't. But still they only become apparent as you rise in skill, on lower skill levels they hardly matter. So, the point number one is going to be:
I. Doing it "the right way" should only give a slight advantage, however, there should be many things to do "the right way".
Now, point number two:
II. Auto-mining and MBS will be in the game no matter what.
Blizzard isn't going to scrap those features - they have thier reviewers, and, as Aphelion rightly pointed out in another thread, there's no thing worse that frustration. These features would be a step back from the interfaces of RTS'es of the modern day and would give a bad reputation to StarCraft II. They are already in, face it.
III. Any solution to MBS should be logically coherent and not artificial.
Aphelion also proposed stuff like "if auto-rallied, workers should idle for several seconds". Now, imagine playing the game for the first time. You see that and wonder "why does that happen?" only to find no kind of a logical answer. There's one very important thing about StarCraft - it is nothing close to having to babysit your units. Babysitting and getting the maximum out of your units are two entirely different things.
IV. In light of principle I, MBS is already solved to some extent.
How? It's easy. Now, every protoss (or at least I assume so) will strive to get warpgates late-game. What is our micro with gateways - click gateway, queue, click another gateway et cetera. What is the micro with warpgates - select gateways, order unit, click on a spot, order another unit et cetera. Different? Well, yes, but not drastically. In fact, it takes the same amount of actions. Exactly the same. With the only difference that you have to aim with your warpgates to get better unit positioning, so it is in fact harder.
For terrans, the solution is also there - you have two kinds of addons - tech addon and mass addon. Now, if the game encourages unit mixing, you'd really want to select those separately because you want different units coming out. You don't want marines coming out of a barracks with a tech addon installed. You don't want to order 1 marine from barracks with a mass addon because you can queue 2. This concept can be generalized to point number five:
V. If unit mixing is encouraged, a player who manually controls production is going to have an edge vs a player who does it in 1-click mode.
As simple as that. A player who used mass queue with MBS will only produce units in packs: 6 zealots, 6 stalkers, 6 immortals. A player who uses manual select can do stuff like 3 zealots, 2 stalkers, 1 immortal in one go. Not to mention that one wouldn't really want to order 6 high templars because no sane economy can support such things. 4 zealots 2 HT is ok, but ordering 6 HT means there's something wrong with your play which is precisely what I want to point out. Manual control leads to better production management and will surely be used by the pros because it gives advantage. We've already figured out that the magnitude of that advantage doesn't matter. Everything counts. MBS in it's current state is not a problem.
Worker auto-rally, on the other hand, somewhat lacks solution at this point. I would solve it in way that workers don't seek unoccupied minerals better than in SC I. This way you'd want to reset rally point after every worker, but it meets an unusual problem - you start our with six. Spreading four workers isn't that easy, spreading six seems unbelievably hard.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Whats the difference between Multiple Larva selection and Multiple building selection?
- You can't continually hotkey larva
Perhaps we should aim to make MBS more like MLS - just a thought
|
I heard that grouped workers autosplit from BlizzCon reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
