|
On October 02 2007 11:27 IdrA wrote:
because i think they are quite willing to put higher guaranteed profits over making a quality game that satisfies hardcore fans, if their goal was to make a true sc2 and only to make it as high quality as possible, i dont think they would put mbs in.
sacrificing the micro/macro/strategy balance in favor of an easy to use interface would definetly make the game more appealing to newbs, and the hardcore fans are gonna buy the game either way. so mbs would guarantee higher sales right off the bat.
to aim for esports success might promise higher sales later, after it catches on. but that is taking the risk that it will catch on at all, and it is sacrificing some of the initial sales assuming reviewers say its too hard/complex to play and cause alot of casual gamers to not want to buy it.
good post.
|
Mora, you are truly giving Blizzard too much credit. SC has brought gaming to where no one has gone before, I don't think even Blizzard is truly prepared for it. Do you really think that Blizzard can truly mastermind everything and create a game just as perfect, yet at the same time changing the macro/micro balance, and also broadening the esports genre - just by synthesizing all the different intricate elements including MBS in the interface? I do not think any company can do this.
Remember this is the same company which thought fast speed was the way to go on ladders, that intended EMP and mmf to be commonly used in TvP, and the company which didn't know that "there's crashing" due to the hatchery bug. They are a great, great company, the best in the gaming business, but even they cannot grasp the multitude of ways games can evolve, especially not with a crazed nation playing 20 hours a day. SC was a happy accident. They will be lucky if they can replicate it with SC2, and a miracle if they can do so by changing the core style of the game while ignoring veteran players - and even then, I think the new gamestyle you proposed would be inferior and not as fun.
|
the only problem i see it is if you take all these things and put them together you aren't really using a heads up display like it is supposed to be used. The HUD is supposed to help make things easy and effecient yes, but it isnt supposed to do everything for you. If you make it so easy you dont have to move around or go back to your base or macro back at your base or what not you simply want to watch the game the game, not play it. Your using the Hud as a camera to watch pretty explosions and not playing the game as it was ment to be.
|
Screw Nada's MnM attacking Savior's sunks; it's gonna be more like Nada's reapers raping Saviors main with sex micro. 
|
Most posts so far have assumed that what satisfies hardcore starcrafters is not going to satisfy 'noobs.' But I think where most things are concerned that's not necessarily true, and I don't get the impression that blizzard is seriously thinking that way either. Given blizzard's remarks and their playtesting pros, I assume that blizzard is largely of the mindset that what will satisfy hardcore gamers is likely to satisfy 'noobs' as well.
The MBS issue is probably the prominent exception to that rule. The real complaint with MBS is obviously strictly conceptual and could turn out to be unfounded. I think that's obvious. I think what might be less obvious is that MBS, if it goes awry could really destroy the game's competitive aspect. That's the real fear, I'd say. In order to gain a slight aesthetic advantage over starcraft, blizzard is putting sc2's longevity and competitive learning curve in jeopardy.
Probably the most important premise of any successful BW-based design is that blizzard must recognize that the original BW presents an almost ideal learning curve. Aside from any other game factors, the learning curve of BW is such that a player can play for years and still continue to make meaningful and appreciable gains. What blizzard needs to do is imitate that learning curve in whatever game they call Starcraft 2.
MBS could work, as long as it preserves the learning curve. It is certainly a possibility that reducing necessary macro actions could work out. Blizzard obviously recognizes this, and has made some remarks to this effect. Hopefully I can show, in a sort of boring, but hopefully roughly accurate way. why MBS is a pretty big deal (when trying to preserve the learning curve of BW). Essentially your necessary macro actions and screen time (time not spent watching units because you're looking at buildings) is drastically reduced. We've already been over this, but I don't think that the real effects of automining and MBS have really sunk in.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that MBS and automining would, in your average SC1 game, (simply for a point of reference, don't go nuts about how they're not the same game - they obviously have the same system of economics and macro) reduce necessary macro skills to roughly 20% of what is necessary now, and that would be pretty huge. Instead of screaming false analogy, consider for a moment a BW where you didn't have to look back at your nexus for every single probe you built (and that's a lot of probes - probably 50 or more). that's a lot less multitasking any way you slice it. if you've got all your nexii on the same hotkey then it's easy as hell to macro your economy. all you have to do is remember to add a probe at roughly the probe build time, adding nexii and subtracting them to your hotkey binding as your expansions saturate. that alone reduces the shear multitasking load tremendously, as anyone who plays starcraft can appreciate provided that they take the time to imagine it.
the other real simplification of MBS is that it becomes significantly easier to macro an army very efficiently. in pretty much every matchup, barring zvz, assuming sc2 is like starcraft - and i think where macro concerned it will be - there will be a pretty big number of production structures. anywhere from 5 facts vs 7 gates midgame to a dozen facts vs 20+ gates late game. the abliity to macro what would be seven left clicks + z as a simple 4z and then another seven left clicks + d as a simple 5d and then finally a few left clicks + k or what have you would save pros a lot of time. i mean seriously, take a moment to think about yourself having to do 20 left clicks and press a corresponding key (not to mention these clicks have to have some aim and must be in different places) and compare that to 4z5d6k. one can be drilled down to maybe 2s - 5s at best, but the other only takes maybe a twentieth the time with equal practice. apply these two figures as constants for late game macro, or even mid game macro (where probably a only slightly lesser ratio would occur) and you'll see why i think it's safe to forecast that between automining and MBS, macro would take roughly 20% of the current ablility to achieve roughly the same results. with macro that simplified, it's simply unrealistic to say that it would comprise a significant aspect of the game on par with micro or strategy.
is that the end of the world? it's obvious why a lot of veteran starcrafters think so. there's no doubt that the macro variable is huge in contributing to a player's progression along the learning curve, or his net skill, or whatever you want to call it. in essence, there are three dimensions to starcraft/BW, and the starcraft 2 that's being presented seems almost two dimensional. would you like to swap a live, hot, naked woman for a page from a magazine? .
in summary, i don't think idra's description of starcraft's beauty as being a mix of micro/macro/strategy is a simple aesthetic as you seem to suggest. granted, it's not a naked woman or a picture either, but the major concern is that blizzard is yet to reveal anything of substance that will fill satisfiy the multitasking gap that MBS and automining will put in the game. in starcraft you have this game that presents its players with an environment that can scale enormously as the players' skills improve. to use another metaphor, BW, in terms of its learning curve and skill sets, currently offers colesseum in which players can compete, and by adding a bunch of UI improvements, blizzard is effectively shrinking this colesseum toward the size of a little, blue sparring mat.
i'm not saying that it can't work, and i don't think anyone is. we're saying that we have trouble imagining what blizzard plans to use in order to 're-expand' the learning curve. in BW1, we already see brilliant micro that is limited more by the physical speed of a mousing hand than by any need for more multitasking (at least where pros are concerned). so the fix is not in making 'more micro.' there's already enough micro. smart pros can already manage their attacks close enough to the ideal that the marginal benefit of more time is pretty small. more strategy is of course great, but it almost certainly won't represent anything meaningful where the multitasking gap of MBS/automining is concerned. it's possible, of course, that blizzard will find something, but they certainly haven't presented it yet, and i think that until they do, the move to MBS is not a good one.
multitasking being what it is, blizzard could always speed up gameplay to compensate and possibly preserve many aspects of the bw learning curve. faced with that possibility, i think i'd agree with idra that macro as we see it in bw is a significant part of the appeal.
|
Fantastic post failsafe. When its all said and done, we are what Chordorvskiy so unkindly put - a niche community (albeit, a GREAT niche that has the RIGHT opinions.  ) It remains to see if Blizzard will put a small number of dedicated, diehard, and probably the single most skill based RTS community over accolades and the vast hordes of money wielding noobs out there. I don't think we will win, but I certainly hope that Blizzard takes our concerns to heart.
If SC2 comes out with MBS and kills our beloved game without giving a equal substitute, I want to know that I fought as hard as I can against it.
|
On October 02 2007 11:44 Aphelion wrote:
Mora, you are truly giving Blizzard too much credit. SC has brought gaming to where no one has gone before, I don't think even Blizzard is truly prepared for it. Do you really think that Blizzard can truly mastermind everything and create a game just as perfect, yet at the same time changing the macro/micro balance, and also broadening the esports genre - just by synthesizing all the different intricate elements including MBS in the interface? I do not think any company can do this.
Remember this is the same company which thought fast speed was the way to go on ladders, that intended EMP and mmf to be commonly used in TvP, and the company which didn't know that "there's crashing" due to the hatchery bug. They are a great, great company, the best in the gaming business, but even they cannot grasp the multitude of ways games can evolve, especially not with a crazed nation playing 20 hours a day. SC was a happy accident. They will be lucky if they can replicate it with SC2, and a miracle if they can do so by changing the core style of the game while ignoring veteran players - and even then, I think the new gamestyle you proposed would be inferior and not as fun.
I don't believe i've given any credit to blizzard. if i recall correctly, i said that they know what they are doing better than idra does - i would hardly credit that as 'credit'. Other than that i have been posing questions. Some on behalf of the Core Designer in me, and the other half from the Practical Developer side of me.
I believe Blizzard experienced a tremendous fluke with Starcraft. The creation of Warcraft3 only backed up those sentiments (at least from my perspective). I'm not convinced or inclined to believe that blizzard is capable of tailoring this game to accomodate both core and casual gamers. I've only asked the people on the Anti-MBS side to come up with better arguements; come up with better questions, useful questions! Maybe through enough constructive reasoning we can throw together something so irrefutable (via mani's report, etc.) that we can actually affect a change in their intentions!
|
Cool, we're still on the idea that clickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickDclickDclic4o276498ty842t487g2tyu3@@@ in under a second is the essence of macro.
Apparently removing the purely mechanical action at the END of all the thought processes of ONE part of macro is going to bust macro down to 20% of it's original demand. The hyperbole is so silly here I don't have an adjective for it.
I think everyone with a functional brain can agree that MBS on it's own is definitely going to make the game easier. But that's MBS on it's own. "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS". Is SC2 going to be SC1 with MBS?
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before. With high-yield resources, terrain interactions and whatever bloody hell, there are a million more facets to macromanagement than before for the player to consider, but a million less clicks for the player to do to achieve the same thing. Those clicks are going to micro-intensive units, because I want to watch epic fights and not someone going back to their base and clicking all their factories. That's how I see SC2 to be shaping up. And that's what the freaking developers are promising, that there will definitely be ways for pro players to showcase their skill and speed. At least to me, preferably in a fight, and not over their base.
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
Don't like it? No one's killing SC1 or putting it down. Especially with this niche community so used to SC1, it's natural that everyone is going to reject change. Stick with SC1, love it, but don't spout bullshit about how SC2 is going to be Warcraft 4, along with a thousand word essay comprising nothing but mistruths.
|
The silence of Blizzard is annoying, and their FAQ's only raises more concerns that they are not at all aware of how bw is played.. seems pretty useless. They ignored people that warned about about war3 (beta was leaked... and it feels like they are doing it again. They say they want to make it competative, they are even marketing it as a competative game.. And then it's "of course" that drones will will automatically harvest after they are built (from forum faq)
Who are theese progamers that blizzard has hired? What game did they compete in? and maybe more importantly, when were they progamers? Or are Blizzard just not listening to them?
All is quiet on the blizzard front.. :\
Wish they stated their views more, just a tiny bit of babysitting our main concerns would make it so much easier.. Then we can stop debating, and one of the sides can give up.. maybe
|
I wonder if actual pros are this outraged
|
No more than they were when War3 came out.
On October 02 2007 14:42 TeRRan`UseR wrote:Screw Nada's MnM attacking Savior's sunks; it's gonna be more like Nada's reapers raping Saviors main with sex micro.
But seriously, how many of us are also worried whether the micro in SC2 will be satisfactory for SCBW players? The units seem to move a little bit strange. I'm worried they will react like War3 units.
|
Very good post uriel-.
A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro.
Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale.
Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will)
What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro".
A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish.
I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface.
Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they )
But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him.
Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into.
I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro.
|
I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 18:29 uriel- wrote:
Cool, we're still on the idea that clickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickZclickDclickDclic4o276498ty842t487g2tyu3@@@ in under a second is the essence of macro.
Apparently removing the purely mechanical action at the END of all the thought processes of ONE part of macro is going to bust macro down to 20% of it's original demand. The hyperbole is so silly here I don't have an adjective for it.
20% of its physical requirements, yes.
I think everyone with a functional brain can agree that MBS on it's own is definitely going to make the game easier. But that's MBS on it's own. "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS". Is SC2 going to be SC1 with MBS?
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before. With high-yield resources, terrain interactions and whatever bloody hell, there are a million more facets to macromanagement than before for the player to consider, but a million less clicks for the player to do to achieve the same thing. Those clicks are going to micro-intensive units, because I want to watch epic fights and not someone going back to their base and clicking all their factories. That's how I see SC2 to be shaping up. And that's what the freaking developers are promising, that there will definitely be ways for pro players to showcase their skill and speed. At least to me, preferably in a fight, and not over their base.
I don't want more micro over less macro. You won't have to watch me go back to my base, cause you'll be watching from an observers perspective. But I god damn well want to have to go back to my base, or I'll be extremely disappointed.
Again, I don't want more micro at the expense of macro - if I liked that concept I could play warcraft 3. And I have seen no evidence of there being a "million more facets to macromanagement" than before.. Everything seems to be more or less the same.
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
Don't like it? No one's killing SC1 or putting it down. Especially with this niche community so used to SC1, it's natural that everyone is going to reject change. Stick with SC1, love it, but don't spout bullshit about how SC2 is going to be Warcraft 4, along with a thousand word essay comprising nothing but mistruths.
Ok see, this is what I take issue with: empty fucking words. You say it's going to add thinking - HOW?
You say it's going to take more experience and strategic grasp than SC macro - WHY?
So far whenever blizzard has been asked this question, what will replace the 4z5z6z their answer has been 'well.. blink'. Blink is not a fucking replacement for macro, it's a simple micro spell, which ,while definitely being one of my favorites so far, is not going to be all that demanding. The warpgates might be something that could make up for it, but we dunno much about them yet.
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
That's just how it is, SC2 is way different than warcraft 3 - it's the successor in name and spirit, MBS is likely not going to be a big enough deterrent to most people. Hell, maybe not even for me (I mean, I'm buying it regardless, if I stick with it depends on if I'll find it as enjoyable).
On October 02 2007 18:43 ocoini wrote:The silence of Blizzard is annoying, and their FAQ's only raises more concerns that they are not at all aware of how bw is played.. seems pretty useless. They ignored people that warned about about war3 (beta was leaked... and it feels like they are doing it again. They say they want to make it competative, they are even marketing it as a competative game.. And then it's "of course" that drones will will automatically harvest after they are built (from forum faq) Who are theese progamers that blizzard has hired? What game did they compete in? and maybe more importantly, when were they progamers? Or are Blizzard just not listening to them? All is quiet on the blizzard front.. :\ Wish they stated their views more, just a tiny bit of babysitting our main concerns would make it so much easier.. Then we can stop debating, and one of the sides can give up.. maybe
They have Pillars, who was one of the best players in the world back in the early days of SC and BW. He's also been one of the top early players in several other RTSes, so.. I'm confident he's a good person for this job.
I don't know what his opinion on MBS is tho.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote:Very good post uriel-. A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro. Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale. Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will) What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro". A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish. I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface. Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they ) But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him. Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into. I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro.
Read half your post:
Go play chess. No offense, but we want different things out of this game, clearly. I want a physical and mental game.
Read your last line:
You won't have SC style macro with MBS. SC style macro implies a physical aspect.
|
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
What? No way... aren't progamers under contracts? They'll likely continue playing SC, it's what they're good at now, it's a HUGE risk to jump to a new game for them. I think over a couple years the game will die down (as long as SC2 is successful), by having fewer and fewer starleagues etc., but I can't see SC dying at all soon :/
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 22:33 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on. What? No way... aren't progamers under contracts? They'll likely continue playing SC, it's what they're good at now, it's a HUGE risk to jump to a new game for them. I think over a couple years the game will die down (as long as SC2 is successful), by having fewer and fewer starleagues etc., but I can't see SC dying at all soon :/
I'm speaking longterm :x
|
On October 02 2007 22:32 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote:Very good post uriel-. A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro. Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale. Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will) What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro". A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish. I suppose the key difference between the two camps (pro and anti MBS) is what they want a game to be. Ultimately I would like an RTS game to absolutely obey my will. That is, I would control the game with my mind, and literally out-think my opponent. I would be able to whizz from the front-line to base and if i saw some units in trouble, I would just mentally micro them. there would be no delay as I drag a selection box around them and then press the appropriate hot-keys and move them. It would happen as soon as I thought it. I don't want the interface to get in my way. As has been said before... I want to fight my opponent, not the interface. Until such times, I want the interface to be as intuitive as possible, I don't want single building selection, as much as I wouldn't want my computer to revert back to a purely command-line driven operating system. (imagine if Starcraft operated on a CLI, so that you pressed enter to get a console, had to physically type "attack-move" and maybe enter grid co-ordinates, "10 meter North East" I think we agree to get a game like this operating at a reasonable pace would require a LOT of skill, but no-one would play it would they ) But for the anti-MBS I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt it will affect the game half as much as you imagine it will. Manual control will always be greater than automatic control. And if this game is anything like Blizzard's other games this will be the case. If any player relies too much on the computer's AI to control his army, any decent player will out-macro him and out-micro his army, and simply run rings around him. Also that if you believe that adding MBS makes the game "easier", remember the description of Blizzard games... "easy to learn, hard to master". Don't worry there will be plenty to get your teeth into. I'm hoping for a game with WC3's level of intense micro with SC style macro. Read half your post: Go play chess. No offense, but we want different things out of this game, clearly. I want a physical and mental game. Read your last line: You won't have SC style macro with MBS. SC style macro implies a physical aspect.
He just said that he wanted to have physical requirements in the game, so dont say the "Go play chess" argument since it doeesnt hold. He basically said:
Physical = micro
Mental= Macro.
He dont want to remove physical from the game, he wants to remove physical from macro, since the physical of micro is more complex for the user and more fun for the spectator. Macro have much less thinking per click than micro, therefore if we make macro clicks as mentally craving as micro clicks by removing a lot of unneed clicks we get a game that is mentally harder than before and still just as craving on the physical abilities to click a lot of times.
Macro clicks is a battle vs the clock, micro clicks is a battle vs another human. The multitasking aspect is kept in a way if they can improve the army diversity and make players want to expand more aggressively.
Thats the essence of his post i think atleast.
Edit: Sorry, i thought u quoted uriel, my bad. But this guy just got a vision, when you can control games with your mind i guess well see how it work, and i think that it wont be as seamless untill we have something like a cyborg brain.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on.
Yip. Starcraft will die relatively soon after Starcraft 2 is released, just like Quake 4 killed Quake 3, even though it was inferior in multiplayer, or at the very least it will cause a split in the scene, just like CS:S and CS 1.6 is now split. Because of this, it is very important that SC2 is a success.
As to the whole MBS debate, I find it very hard to make up my mind. My biggest worry with MBS is MBS combined with auto-mining. Hotkey'ing 6 command centres and having them all auto-mine will make building a strong economy very easy, I doubt anyone would argue with this. Unit production might be made easier with MBS, but not as significantly as most people believe.
On the other hand, I also feel that MBS is necessary in the evolution of RTS games, and I do not doubt that it is absolutely essential to SC2. Not having MBS would be like a Formula 1 team deciding that they do not need the newest automobile technology because it takes some of the skill out of racing. It is essential for SC2 to have MBS even if it is just to keep it on par with other RTS games.
So, I believe we are stuck in a situation where MBS is so to speak a necessary evil. Now this has been rehashed multiple times, and I'm just stating it at the start so that it will be clear where I'm coming from.
What I am wondering is whether the decrease in macro will not simply increase efficiency in pro-gaming. So far everyone seems to argue as if SC2 will be played in much the same way as SC1, but with an easier interface. I believe that the easier macro will greatly change the way the game is played, so that a map can be mined clean after 20-30 minutes of play, rather than 40-50 minutes.
For those that remember the start of progaming, I'm sure that if you look past your nostalgia you'll remember games where half the mineral spots on a map were left untouched after 60 minutes into the game. With the ever strengthening macro (forced on players by Oov), the game has changed to such an extent that a map can easily be mined out after 50 minutes. Because of this, macro changed from simply being able to build and mine from expansions, to being able to secure expansions, and to fight over those expansions.
MBS to me would have the same effect. The increased ease with which macro can now be done will simply place higher macro demands on the player (perhaps not physically, but in the game itself). Players would be able to expand much more rapidly, and would need to increase the speed at which they do everything, in order to keep up with the opponent. Bases would need to be secured more quickly, units manuevered more quickly, and even production facilities set up more quickly, to keep up with the greater income of players.
I can't see a game played competitively without players being pushed to the limit, and having an easier way to build units would force players to spend the "energy" usually spent on building units elsewhere, such as taking even more expansions. I'll try to illustrate this with an example:
Lets take TvT on Python, with SC2:
The start of the game should progress in much the same way, as progamers have more than enough time to do what needs to be done in the beginning in SC1, thus they are already functioning at 100% efficiency in the beginning.
Once the game reaches 10 minutes, both players have taken their naturals, and there are a few small skirmishes across the map. Usually in SC1 this is where players take their first expansions. So, both players take their first expansions. Now, the first expansion will be up and running a bit sooner, because players are able to get miners there efficiently, and have more time to spend on the base due to the smaller constraints of unit production being placed on them. So, 1 minute after the Command Centre finishes, both players have a fully functional expansion up, decently protected with turrets and tanks. This is where the game changes.
Both players now have minerals sooner than they usually would in SC1, so they have a choice, either build more units, or expand again. If they choose to expand again, 2 minutes later that expansion could be fully up and running, and they would have the choice of expanding yet again, or building more production facilities. This choice which is already very important in SC1, would be much more common because of the increased efficiency the players are playing at. Thus macro'ing will in a certain sense, still be about deciding when to do what in the game. Should I expand now, or would I be over-extending, do I need an additional 2 factories, or will my opponent have too great an economic advantage. Similar choices to that of SC1, but much more frequent.
But the increased strain does not end there. With more bases being built, more bases will also need to be defended, or alternatively, more bases will need to be attacked. Players will need to find ways of increasing the mobility of their forces, either by standard means found in SC1 (dropships, nydus canals, arbiters), or by ways that may only be possible with MBS, like spreading out production facilities, something that is impractical in SC1, because buildings need to be individually selected to build units, thus each new location increases the time it takes to build units.
This is simply a small example of the changes that MBS could bring to the game, and I think that if you consider the situation described in depth you will find that it probably will still require a strong macro sense to play.
So, while I believe that auto-mining when used in conjunction with MBS can make having a strong economy easier in SC1 terms, I also believe that the definition of a "strong economy" might change in SC2, due to the increased ease with which macro is executed.
As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
|
On October 02 2007 23:35 Daigomi wrote:
As a final example I will use CnC3, a game I have only seen played a few times, but seems to be a decent strategy game. CnC3 has MBS (so to speak), yet the apm of the players I saw play was comfortably over 200. Because buildings build faster, and more units can be build, players are simply forced to do twice as much as they previously did. It is no longer sufficient to expand once every five minutes, you have to constantly be busy expanding, and finding new mineral spots, and building new production facilities. The game shocked me at how high paced it was, rushes happened in the first minute of the game, yet expansions were built while the units were being microed, and expansions were being killed a rebuilt.
As I said, I've only seen a few games of CnC3, but it made me feel that SC2 will perhaps be even more macro dependent than SC1 was, or at least similarly so, even though MBS is implemented. If my final example doesn't hold water, please don't disregard the whole argument, I have only seen a few games of CnC3.
PS. No I don't want SC2 to be the next CnC, don't even try to throw that at me.
The cnc3 effect comes from building a miner facility + miner pays off itself and more in ~40 seconds, and it takes 20 seconds to build.
Also the unit building macro in that game is extremely easy, starcraft 2 wont be nearly as easy. In that game a unit dont take resources untill after it begins to build, so you just click a que of 99 and are done for the rest of the game, that and mbs together.
But atleast its a great example on how gameplay changes when the interface is made easier, and cnc3 probably got the easiest interface for any fast paced rts to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
