|
On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming...
The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
|
On October 02 2007 02:08 InRaged wrote:
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.
Yes there is a need to replace the loss of macro actions.
Warpgates will not entirely make up for the loss of the macro actions.
Macro is not more complicated because some spots are better to expand to than others. Scouting is already important, cliff jumping or not. This wont change
Starcraft is already considered extremely balanced don't argue that SC2 will be more balanced
The terrans addons will add a bit of macro, but not even as much as warpgates. See point 2.
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.
Maybe I did not understand your post, I still doubt people will use lots of different spells, they are going to have to pay the tech cost to get them all. Smartcasting looks like it will force the weakening of many spells to well below starcraft level unfortuantly.
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.
Yes they should be payed attention to if you want to be successful. However the attacker has the advantage, this is a fact. If your going to reaver drop, the person dropping the reavers chooses when the best time to fight is, not the defender. He is able to handle his macro because he is ready and prepared, the defender has to stop everything and focus on the attack. The harrasser can also grab his reaver in his shuttle, take it to a safe spot and macro before coming back. The defender is still forced to be defensive because the threat is still so imminant.
Actually, I hope you won't discuss sc2 anymore and stick to broodwar if you think That will destroy progaming.
Well it very well could destroy the progaming that we have now. Sure people will play it competatively, but the progaming scene in korea relies on much more than just people playing. It relys on sponser, fans, advertisements. For the players to get their rediculous salaries their sponsers must be getting something in return. What they get is thousands of people tuning in and seeing their product. If people cant follow the game because everything is going on outside of their view, its going to be bad for the scene.
|
On October 02 2007 02:29 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming... The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
Yes, its exciting when battles happen on multiple fronts, but most fights in starcraft happen in the one localised area. Its logical to have your army attack one point, your whole army is stronger than a portion of it and therefore the attack is more likely to be successful. When there is only one front, people can see the action and can visually tell whos winning. This allows people to easily see how the game is progressing. If it becomes the norm to be attacking 5 spots at a time, then the crowd is going to miss a lot of the action and it will not be as enjoyable to watch.
|
MBS in my eyes is a natural progression in RTS games. Its like from warcraft 1 you could'nt select more than 1 unit at a time and in warcraft 2 you could. Its just the next step
|
Sweden33719 Posts
You could select 6 units at the same time in Warcraft 1 I think?
You're thinking of Dune.
|
I think it was 4 units in War1, and it required you to hold shift down when dragging a selection box.
|
On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
|
On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now?
They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
|
On October 02 2007 23:52 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now? They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes.
They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
|
On October 03 2007 00:00 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 23:52 Klockan3 wrote:On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now? They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes. They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
Ah well, but i guess they can do like starcraft and focus on the major army movements and have the commentator say what happens around the map.
Eventhough a multifront battle is fought there will be concentrated forces on both sides since you will always lose more to a concentrated force than a spread one. Just that having small parts of your force out harrasing wont diminish your concentraded force much but they will still be able to kill a lot of undefended units due to sc being sc with high lethality.
|
On October 03 2007 00:00 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 23:52 Klockan3 wrote:On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now? They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes. They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time.
The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it.
|
On October 03 2007 00:13 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 00:00 Aphelion wrote:On October 02 2007 23:52 Klockan3 wrote:On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now? They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes. They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time. The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it.
There's only that many ways you can present something to an audience that is acceptable. The reason for SC's success of a spectator sport is that its easy to tell whats going on even for a player who has never seen it.
And its not a dream as far as I'm concerned, more like a nightmare.
|
On October 03 2007 00:15 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 00:13 xtian15 wrote:On October 03 2007 00:00 Aphelion wrote:On October 02 2007 23:52 Klockan3 wrote:On October 02 2007 23:47 xtian15 wrote:On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote: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. Hmm. If that is the case, then new methods of reporting and observing games would/must be developed. I dunno, multiple observers, Picture-in-picture, split screen etc. can be used to show the game. It makes for a very interactive way of viewing, especially if the viewers can toggle between the different video and audio feeds of the commentators. Don't you think that would be way better than anything that we have now? They could simply have 2 commentators splitscreen each focusing on one of the players moves wich debates with each other on the state of the game. Thats twice the coverage of current sc wich would probably be well enough for most purposes. They tried that shit early on, it blows. The human mind naturally likes to just focus on one thing at a time. The thing is, new methods of viewing/broadcasting games will be developed in order to keep pace with the action in SC2, if my dream of multiple battlefronts can be accomplished with SC2 with MBS freeing significant time for it. There's only that many ways you can present something to an audience that is acceptable. The reason for SC's success of a spectator sport is that its easy to tell whats going on even for a player who has never seen it. And its not a dream as far as I'm concerned, more like a nightmare.
I guess we have to agree to disagree then.
As soon as I finish my 10 day trial period, I'm probably gonna start a thread about how to best make SC2 perfect for eSports (with a bias towards MBS). Oh well. G'night!
|
Well think of it from the perspective of the person at home watching on their tv. If they split the screen up, everything will be small and hard to see. Itll also be confusing as hell trying to work out where on the map you are looking. If the screen keeps jumping to a different view, its no different from the commentator just jumping quickly through all the battle locations, still very hard to know whats going on. Its not going to be possible to show all the action on the one screen.
Counterstrike is a great esport, but awful to watch a vod from, you miss the action nearly every time due to the camera not being on the correct player at the correct time.
However that being said, I dont think youll see more than 2 attacks at a time very often at all. Its too hard for players to control and weak if you split your forces too much so it wont be a problem.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
You already have multiple front battles in SC1. I don't see how MBS is going to help with them.
The point of attacking in different places at the same time is that your opponent can't keep all the attacks away (unless some pros who sometimes are prepared for them).
If you can check all the places, what would be the purpose of dividing your army knowing that your enemy has no a higher chance of stopping it?
|
The 'MBS freeing up time'-thing can be compared to chess games where the top grandmasters get to use a chess engine to assist them.
It's called 'advanced chess'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
The computer frees up time because the player no longer needs to calculate on the short term. Instead the player imagines positional play and strategy far ahead into the game.
It really reduced the influence of the skill of the player on the outcome of the game. An mediocre amateur player can barely add anything to what the computer does. He can never really 'overrule' the computer or make a long term positional judgment about several candidate moves proposed by the computer.
Only on the top level of the super grandmasters computers have weaknesses and humans have strengths. Players compete on the basis of a very narrow set of skills; operating the chess engine and long term positional/strategical thinking.
No real grandmaster-level mistakes are made and once one player gets a position that is a little stronger the game is basically over.
I don't think anyone prefers advanced chess over normal chess where humans are merely humans and really have to fight mind to mind and where mistakes are made, players crumble under the pressure, etc.
Where normally players range from 1000 to 2850 in elo. When it comes to advanced chess players range from the rating of the chess engine, now around 2800, towards 3100.
So that's a big difference. The spectrum of skill is narrowed even though the computer frees up time for the player to think about things more important than preventing blunders.
Also, the chess isn't more exiting or spectacular either.
|
On October 03 2007 01:34 BlackStar wrote:The 'MBS freeing up time'-thing can be compared to chess games where the top grandmasters get to use a chess engine to assist them. It's called 'advanced chess'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ChessThe computer frees up time because the player no longer needs to calculate on the short term. Instead the player imagines positional play and strategy far ahead into the game. It really reduced the influence of the skill of the player on the outcome of the game. An mediocre amateur player can barely add anything to what the computer does. He can never really 'overrule' the computer or make a long term positional judgment about several candidate moves proposed by the computer. Only on the top level of the super grandmasters computers have weaknesses and humans have strengths. Players compete on the basis of a very narrow set of skills; operating the chess engine and long term positional/strategical thinking. No real grandmaster-level mistakes are made and once one player gets a position that is a little stronger the game is basically over. I don't think anyone prefers advanced chess over normal chess where humans are merely humans and really have to fight mind to mind and where mistakes are made, players crumble under the pressure, etc. Where normally players range from 1000 to 2850 in elo. When it comes to advanced chess players range from the rating of the chess engine, now around 2800, towards 3100. So that's a big difference. The spectrum of skill is narrowed even though the computer frees up time for the player to think about things more important than preventing blunders. Also, the chess isn't more exiting or spectacular either.
These analogies never work, i can just as well say that mbs is like playing with small woodpieces instead of lifelike statues in time based chess. Moving the statues in a fast fashion can take skill and youd have large brutish players in the competition simply beacuse they can move fast. Now if we removed this the spectrum of players would lessen since these guys skill wouldnt have any place anylonger now that anyone can move the pieces.
Sure my analogy sucks, but so do yours.
|
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
|
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility.
However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
|
On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has.
My analogy is a lot better though since mbs doesnt automate any thought processes at all, while instead it makes some actions less demanding on your mechanical skills. And contrary to what some here believes starcraft will still take a lot of mechanical skill to play and starcraft isnt all about mechanical skill either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
