|
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote:
i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore. WTF....yes SC has special god mode features that can only be accessed by someone with Korean DNA!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 07 2007 05:20 shasin wrote:
i'm almost sure that it has been said or at least it went through your mind that Blizzard will not make a game for koreans only, again. SC2 WILL be made so you will not need a high APM anymore.
If so I'm not playing it.
Probably not buying it either 
And yes, this is different from the people saying "Without MBS I'm not buying sc2" because I'll buy SC2 regardless of wether it has MBS or not, I just won't play the game if it somehow turns out to be so easy you don't benefit from being fast.
But I'm 99% sure this won't happen.
|
Norway28727 Posts
i genuinely believe that the reason why they want to add mbs and automining is that they want it to be possible to play with 100 apm and feel like you're able to do everything you want to do.
they're not trying to add stuff into the game to make 150-200 apm necessary. they just won't do that. =[
|
I haven't been following the discussion much lately, given I'm at WCG, but I wanted to add two tidbits:
1) The "for koreans only" argument does have a point behind it; SC players on average have better control over the SC1 interface than the average non-SC RTS player. Therefore, if SC2 retains (or mostly retains) the major features of the SC1 interface, SC players will start off on the average with a big advantage over other RTS gamers. If one accepts that there are significantly more Korean SC players than non-Korean SC players, then on the average Koreans would have a bigger advantage with a SC1 interface in SC2 than non-Koreans.
2) I asked an RTS lead designer (kept anonymous b/c his comment was off the record) at WCG about how he viewed the MBS debate. He agreed with the above argument, and showed concern about MBS's effect on the hardcore SC population's perception of SC2, but believed that Blizzard was the best-suited developer to figure out a way to implement new features while keeping to the spirit of the original.
But most importantly, he said that the UI wasn't sacrosanct; he believed that if it was necessary, Blizzard would make major changes to the UI not only during the beta, but even in an after-game patch. Therefore, it's all right for us to wait until we can playtest a feature-complete SC2 to determine MBS's affect on the overall gameplay, and considering that the designer laughed at the very mention that Blizzard would remove MBS without proper beta playtesting, that's probably how it's going to pan out.
|
So, you want to make the game shittier so as to artificially elevate the noobs above the experts. And unless your RTS lead designer is Mora or a Blizzard employee, his words hold negative weight for me. Besides SC, what great games have the RTS industry on their resume?
Edit: I believe its this idea of the UI not being sacrosanct, the willingness to tinker with important things for short term effects and in general a reliance upon gimmicks rather than long term quality that leads to the sorry shape of the modern day RTS industry.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Meh, I'm ALL for experimenting. IMO if MBS could possibly be in the final game but then removed in patch 1.01 that would be a huge positive for me, just as the other way around.
What I mean is: I think I'm right, but I prefer having some insurance if I'm wrong. I don't think we should ever attempt to get MBS removed pre-beta..
|
On October 06 2007 21:44 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2007 21:16 lugggy wrote:
Is it really so important that we predict whether SC2 needs to remove MBS or not? Once we have the beta a lot of the uncertainties we have been arguing over will no longer clutter the issue. If the beta sucks it will be pretty easy to suggest removing MBS at that time. Will it be too late then? If not, are we wasting all our effort in these epic threads trying to play Fortune Teller Tycoon to SC2 and MBS? it might all be guesswork if the only question was whether or not blizz could find enough things to do to fill time during the game. but its not. unless they can find some other way to keep macro a relevant and time-consuming, the addition of mbs and automining will essentially remove macro as a determining factor in the game, which is a bad thing for the reasons that have been repeated a few billion times. only fortune telling necessary is guessing whether blizz wants to make the game into war4 or sc2.
Well we all have our own conclusions about that. IMO the evidence is in though, and it's what Liquid Drone fears. ><
Seriously though, we are debating whether X=4, when the beta will give us the answer. We can decide then. So you are 100% sure MBS ruins it. Others have reasons for waiting until they can see the game. Even Blizzard isn't sure yet, and they are the ones making it and the ones with access to it. Convince Blizzard that SC2 should require 200+ APM to play perfectly. I bet we can't do it. I think Liquid Drone hit the nail on the head.
On October 07 2007 21:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
i genuinely believe that the reason why they want to add mbs and automining is that they want it to be possible to play with 100 apm and feel like you're able to do everything you want to do.
they're not trying to add stuff into the game to make 150-200 apm necessary. they just won't do that. =[
And what game are they making? SC2 or War4?
On October 05 2007 23:17 Manit0u wrote:
SC2:
Heros -- Partially
Large Armies -- Partially
"Extensive Micro" (In the Sense that War3 is Yes and SC is Partially) -- Yes
Extensive Macro -- No
MBS -- Yes ("for now")
Automining -- Yes
Experience & Items -- Partially (Veterans, etc.)
Unit Skills -- Many
Creeps -- Probably No?
Buildings -- Few
Workers -- Few
Upkeep -- Probably No?
War4 it is. TFT downplayed creeps and upkeep. War4 takes them out completely. And goes to space! ><
|
well your evaluations of half the categories are unsubstantiated or just plain wrong.
theyve said no heros, theyve said they want to emphasize masses of units, theres no basis for 'few workers/buildings', theyve said not every unit is going to have skills (like sc), theyve explicitly stated that they want to keep warcraft and starcraft series seperated.
so basically you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
|
On October 07 2007 02:29 xM(Z wrote:
reading through the posts i noticed that you guys are overlooking the money issue.
let's say you have 5 gates on ctrl1, hit D (dragoons; i don't know the designated keys for troops in sc2 so bare with me a few moments) but since you don't have 625 minerals, let's say only 3 'goons (375min) go in to production then you get the "not enough minerals" message.
so far so good but now comes the catch. after you gather the 250min (for to more goons) you hit 1 then D but the other 2 free gates do not produce goons instead those 2 goons get queued in those first 3 gates.
the short version: if you don't have enough resurces for all the gates in your control to produce troups, the next batch of units should be queued, basically meaning that mbs is really dumb.
I'm terribly sorry to kill your argument but even in WC3 if you have several buildings of the same type selected, one is producing and one is not and you want to build something the idle one will start to do it.
The money issue can really come in the situation when you have a lot of buildings later in the game and you don't want to produce certain unit from all of them (because you need cash for exp or something), then it's just manual selection left for you.
Edit: And I believe that in SC2 you can't queue units at all in protoss gateways.
|
do you have any reason to believe that?
it makes no sense given the general pattern of all the other changes theyre making to the interface.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
IIRC you just can't queue units in warpgates, but you can in normal ones? I feel like someone would have told us if this wasn't the case, since there were a lot of TL.netters at blizzcon.
|
On October 08 2007 07:49 FrozenArbiter wrote:
IIRC you just can't queue units in warpgates, but you can in normal ones? I feel like someone would have told us if this wasn't the case, since there were a lot of TL.netters at blizzcon.
Yeah, cooldowns wont save up so you can get a bunch of units out of one warpgate in short periods of time. So yeah, can't queue, ain't no way. I'm pretty sure this was the case at the demos.
|
Also - note that in WC3, you still need ~200 apm to play at the highest level of play. There is plenty to manage and it seems clear that SC2 will have even more to pay attention to.
|
On October 08 2007 14:31 marquis wrote:
Also - note that in WC3, you still need ~200 apm to play at the highest level of play. There is plenty to manage and it seems clear that SC2 will have even more to pay attention to.
Actually Romeo had a record of 420apm in one game or something like that. I have absolutely no idea what he did there...
Edit: A random screenshot of WC3 pro apm usage at the beginning of the game.
|
Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
|
hay guis im in yer game making it slow and stupid.
|
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:
Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;; need
just because you don't need something doesn't mean it won't help
|
On October 08 2007 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:
Even Grubby said that you need no more than 150 APM. It peaks in battles (up to 250 of effective APM), and is below 60 in non-battle situation, unless you're a crazy spammer. ;;
Um... considering how utterly crucial every single battle is in War3, your micro can either make or break the game for you. The higher your apm in battle, the better. There is no "peak" where you don't gain anymore, because you can always micro better than your opponent (no one is even near perfect). That's why you'll see 400-600 apm in most battles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3979/scwc3zp7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9928/apmys4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/6593/49906193wl7.jpg)
