|
On December 10 2007 00:32 Fen wrote:Im getting really frustrated at this macro requires no thinking crap. Have a go at this little test http://www.lumosity.com/iq_tests/preview?number=3This articulates where the difficulty is in SBS macro down very well. The problems themselves are quite easy. Im sure no-one lost because they didnt know what 15 + 6 is. You lost because the problems started happening faster, and your brain got flooded with lots of simple questions which require relatively no thought on their own, but together, stress out the brain and cause it to faulter.
However, just to make it clear, sbs macro in starcraft could be equal if all the baloons got the same question, and you had to do the same answer 10 times just to kill all of them.
And then mbs changes it so you only have to do the answer once if you want the same result. The thought remains exactly the same, the keyboard speed needed is not.
The only thing that could equal the thought process of mathematical problems within sbs is that you have to include that step into your micro so you can prepare for your black out moments. And then people realise that sbs and mbs is really all about the micro and not macro, they make micro a bit easier since you don't have blackspots, they dont make macro easier since macro never overwhelmed anyone, it was micro.
And even if you read the arguments here you realise that those blackspots is what people are after. They don't think that micro can be impressive without a blackspot 2 times a minute. But really, wont the micro just be exactly the same as most of the time, just that the players wont screw up as much as before? And these blackspots added randomness to the game since neither player can know when the opponent is blacked so if someone attacks at exactly the right moment it can be devastating and its all about luck.
Do anyone here really believe that Boxer clicks his buildings slower than Iloveoov? I mean really, how can the master of extreme clickingspeed be slower just beacuse were talking about buildings now?
|
Here is an excellent article on rts design
http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm
The trend today seems to be moving towards more Micromanagment in strategy games, but this doesn’t mean it is any better. Some games allow for micromanagement but also have lots of automation ability which can make the game easier. In Warcraft III many of the units have a special attack ability, but the player has the ability to click on the interface and make the unit always perform that function whenever it determines it is necessary.
|
Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
|
Producing units doesn't require any calculation in itself. In the way SC is played we do need timing because we want to reduce the time we spend on macro since it's limited. But if we had an infinite amount of time to spend on macro it would really be pointless to have that clicking to be part of the game.
Starcraft is the best RTS ever thanks to the macro. But if we want to move to a new generation of RTS, a new level of gameplay, then we will have to find an answer to this. I once jokingly said that buildings should ask you to solve a sudoku puzzle.
If we want a new generation of RTS that focus a lot more on strategy and intelligent thinking rather than it does now, and not necessarily taking away from execution speed which is purely a mental skill, then we have to add new levels of gameplay. And to do that we have to abstract the game completely. I don't see how the current way can be deepened out. I can only see it perfected in SCII. In SC there were units that weren't used and units that were always used. Also, ZvZ had very few viable strategies. That can be fixed. But other than that we need to add new levels of gameplay to make the game more complex.
How RTS games work now is solely based on realism. How this hypothetical future RTS is to be played should be based entirely on what kinds of skills a competitive RTS game wants to test. This means future RTS games need to be come abstractions. Just like chess is an abstraction of an ancient battlefield.
So we have to think about what kind of intelligent base management we can add. Currently while building units there is a limited amount of mistakes that can be made. Building units is pretty straightforward. You can't produce an unit the wrong way. You either produce it or you don't. You can fight a battle the wrong way. And you can also do that better than average. You can have a well placed psi storm, an excellent one, a poor one, etc.
Somehow, base management has to be abstracted to become similar to this. I have absolutely no idea yet how to do this. It should also involve long term strategic considerations. Something about base infrastructure being different depending on what strategy you will be using.
Another thing is that games will have to be able to diverge from each other a lot more. I think this will improve the game. Each game will be a lot more unique than currently. Currently the game has very similar build orders for each game. Yes, there are many options. But this is quite static. It's nothing like chess. And not even close to go.
In chess you can still memorize build orders. We don't have to invent them. Openings in both chess and Starcraft are limited. There are tons more openings in chess than there are in Starcraft. But even in chess they think this is a problem. So Fischer invented Fischer random. Can we do the same for RTS games?
In Starcraft the terrain stays the same throughout the game. So my idea was that in future innovative RTS game we can make it part of the game. If a game similar to go is played regarding the dynamics of the terrain while at the same time the RTS is played then the game becomes 3 dimensional. Right now we have macro and micro. Then we have those two and a terrain go-style game.
One could say the players are using a map editor to change the map. But in a very limited way and under strict rules so that it is similar to the game of go.
These ideas, 'sudoku puzzles in buildings'/'intelligence requiring base management' and 'go-like map editing' are the only things I could come up with to move RTS gaming unto a new level where it isn't depending as much on APM based skills as it is right now.
|
On December 11 2007 00:24 KaasZerg wrote:
Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
You know, I've wanted to suggest that for a while now, but it just seems so ridiculous I think most people will dismiss it as silly. Interesting take on the 'two separate games' scenario people like to think about (MBS being on a toggle) though.
edit: but if you think about it, some games have similar things of doing this. Like in AoX, you can get an upgrade that allows your barracks to produce 2 units at once... it's sort of like selecting two buildings with one: MBS.
I believe this is in SC2 as well, there's a barracks add-on that allows you to make 2 at once as well?
Why not make that go further and allow you to keep 'upgrading' your barracks to train even more at once? Make the upgrades increase in price exponentially, so making more barracks' is more cost effective in the end!
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 10 2007 15:03 Motiva wrote:MyLostTemple Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of. I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used. Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game. I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro. Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual. If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit). I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport. But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was: Show nested quote +
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive. Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport. Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive. However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point) I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts. Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential. Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread - Thank you for your time.
i don't mean to be rude but your posts are so long winded and rambley i can't tell what points your trying to make.
How much Grubby practiced when the game 1st came out is irrelevant, it has already become so simple to him (and other pros) that they argue there is very little need for endless practice since the game is in essence easy to them. If SC2 ends up like this it will drastically hurt it's potential as an esport. War3 is a legit example too because SC2 seems to be leaning towards a more micro than macro style of play. it seems that players don't need to train all day to have incredible micro, yet when you mix micro with macro you are faced with an incredible challenge. With macro made so easy in SC2 i don't see what players will need to be practicing. That doesn't mean it wont have sponsors and other things, but the game itself will just viewed as Starcraft with training wheels.
Esports develop metagames regardless of what features are put in the game, all esports have metagames within them. In CS everyone knows to buy the AK, colt or awp. In War3 there are some heros you always pick over others early game. In SC we know to mech vs protoss rather than go mnm.
A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible.
Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
|
Would introducing a scaling delay between the giving and following of orders for larger and large groups help with both MBS and MUS? It would be like the lag you'd receive in an online game where you'd click a group of fighters marines to retreat somewhere and they'd wait a short time before actually moving. The difference is this lag would be highlighted in the game with some kind of animation in the UI and an explanation in the manual/in-game, something about how giving orders to large groups of troops takes time for your sub-commanders and its faster when you micro-manage the troops yourself.
Consider the impact. In a knife edge fight retreating by selecting all 50 units at once would be detrimental as you'd have to deal with relatively significant lag (what, a few seconds lag?) before they'd actually obey. A better player would quickly micro his units in groups of 10-20. Similarly with production if you really need those goons immediately to counter a terran push selecting all 15 gateways at once and dealing with a (10 second?) lag would really encourage players to at most be building them in groups of 2-3 if not one by one.
Managing 150 zerglings with one hotkey could be problematic as you may have a 10 second lag on obeying orders and like-wise so could 50 ultralisks if more powerful units like ultralisks were given modifiers so that controlling 50 of them was the same as 150 zerglings.
The specifics of how long the lag would be would be or what kind of modifiers for more powerful units would up to the game developers to fine tune but perhaps a lot of the anti-MBS crowd's concerns could be dealt with through this. The casual players will have their MBS whilst the competitive players will try to avoid it in order to significantly maximise their building efficiency. For the competitive player the game mechanic will be familiar, like online lag except dependent on unit group size. For the casual player it will be explainable and in fact even add an element of 'realism' which many such players would perhaps even unwittingly mistake for an anti-competitive feature, dependant ofcourse on proper in-game messaging to make sure a player knows its entirely intended and so it doesn't feel like it's actual unintended buggy lag.
|
@mylosttemple: I don't disagree with everything you've written there, but do you think the micro involved in warcraft 3 can really be directly compared to the micro involved in starcraft (either bw or 2)? Perhaps the reason it is as easy to master as you claim it is is because there are so relatively fewer units in war3 than in sc, which makes microing them much less mentally taxing. I'm not saying your example breaks down entirely, but it doesn't work 100% either. It is still (theoretically?) possible that the micro required to effectively manage an army in sc2 would require the daily practice that current elite pro-gamers use when training for bw, despite the relative ease of the production aspect of macro.
|
Yes pretty much the reason warcraft 3 micro is easier cause the game is slower than SC, the unit are super buff and take a while to die, and there are much less units overall to control. And really Mondragon rarely practice and manage to beat savior in wcg. Lots of Korean got solid or insane mechanics but it's that metagame, the timing or feel, making the right maneuvers that establish top pros nowadays.
The only way SC2 lower the skill curve too far is if someone has the ability to play the "perfect" game and that's not going to happen. The ceiling curve for SC is so high that it's not even half way to peaking and never will cause of the archaic interface. Lowering it a little can't hurt cause the ceiling will still be far too high. That's if blizzard does the game justice.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 10:54 talismania wrote:
@mylosttemple: I don't disagree with everything you've written there, but do you think the micro involved in warcraft 3 can really be directly compared to the micro involved in starcraft (either bw or 2)? Perhaps the reason it is as easy to master as you claim it is is because there are so relatively fewer units in war3 than in sc, which makes microing them much less mentally taxing. I'm not saying your example breaks down entirely, but it doesn't work 100% either. It is still (theoretically?) possible that the micro required to effectively manage an army in sc2 would require the daily practice that current elite pro-gamers use when training for bw, despite the relative ease of the production aspect of macro.
In War3 the burden of the game itself (creeping, leveling, item getting) forces the players to move their units around the map continuously. In SC and in SC2 players are not directly rewarded for running units around the map. Most good protoss players know there are moments in midgame they simply can't leave their bases vs good zergs, an example would be after P expos and begins getting the robo/upgrading storm/getting goon range/ adding gates. SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way (i'm referring to war3 there) because that's almost ALL the players are doing. The point is that SC2 shouldn't become war3 with just a little bit more macro involved; instead it should be Starcraft all over again with 3d graphics and more units, or in other words: Micro/Macro/Strategy... with the same balance as before.
So in other words: No. I don't think Blizzard pumping out a watered down, one demensional version of starcraft is smart. Progamers don't have enough to practice, and i can't imagine what's going to be more frustrating than having SC2 boil down to the brief intense battles deciding the winner since macro has become so user friendly anyone who gets ahead (and doesn't suck) stays ahead unless out microed.
|
In SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way
right... which was kinda my point that war3 micro and sc micro are different beasts. I was only responding to the practice argument, where you seemed to be saying that because grubby doesn't need to practice anymore, micro (in general) is easy to learn. I was just saying that just because war3 micro might be easy (well to some) to learn doesn't mean that sc2 or bw micro is.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 11:37 YinYang69 wrote:
Yes pretty much the reason warcraft 3 micro is easier cause the game is slower than SC, the unit are super buff and take a while to die, and there are much less units overall to control. And really Mondragon rarely practice and manage to beat savior in wcg. Lots of Korean got solid or insane mechanics but it's that metagame, the timing or feel, making the right maneuvers that establish top pros nowadays.
The only way SC2 lower the skill curve too far is if someone has the ability to play the "perfect" game and that's not going to happen. The ceiling curve for SC is so high that it's not even half way to peaking and never will cause of the archaic interface. Lowering it a little can't hurt cause the ceiling will still be far too high. That's if blizzard does the game justice.
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 12:02 talismania wrote:Show nested quote +In SC battles are fast and short, there are more units to micro and less time to do it in... personally i think this makes SC sexier; microing around with a bunch of 600 hp ultralisks with spells does not fascinate me the same way right... which was kinda my point that war3 micro and sc micro are different beasts. I was only responding to the practice argument, where you seemed to be saying that because grubby doesn't need to practice anymore, micro (in general) is easy to learn. I was just saying that just because war3 micro might be easy (well to some) to learn doesn't mean that sc2 or bw micro is.
Well war3 micro is, in my opinion, much easier than SC, you have more room to make mistakes, then again you're microing for VERY long periods of time. The problem with SC2 micro is players aren't microing the entire game, players need to sit back and macro at points... we will know those exact points once the metagame develops. My concern is that we will have a large portion of SC2 competitive play made quite easy (the macro part) while the game deciding points will be whittled down into 10 second micro bursts that only make up about 10 to 30 percent of the game.
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 00:24 KaasZerg wrote:
Blizzard could implement MBS as anupgrade. It should be a very costly one like 400/400. It could only pay of in late game otherwise the money is better spent on a couple of tanks. A noob or low apm player can choose to upgrade it earlier. That way the MBS has less impact on mid and early game. Moremicro in late game. UI-upgrade will be another tactical decision.
i'm not sure about this... but it could be a good idea, keep the UI helpers as upgrades. Except for automining, that one is just too much.
|
|
|
On December 11 2007 12:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns.
No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc.
On the micro side when things get large and you have more than 150 unit count you won't be able to maximize your army. As a protoss you either do as best as you can to flank a mech army and than bail out as fast as you can. You can't as a terran properly or have the time to spread you tanks as well as when you have a small tank count. So you just group them all in a clump hastily even when you are not engaging a army. For muta micro you will never see more than one control group harassing. When one harass the main, another expo its too haphazard to control. Even a pro if given arbiters, dark archons, corsairs and templars for free and full of energy won't be able to web, stasis field, mind control, storm with full efficiency and in a timely manner.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 15:03 YinYang69 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 12:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns. No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc. On the micro side when things get large and you have more than 150 unit count you won't be able to maximize your army. As a protoss you either do as best as you can to flank a mech army and than bail out as fast as you can. You can't as a terran properly or have the time to spread you tanks as well as when you have a small tank count. So you just group them all in a clump hastily even when you are not engaging a army. For muta micro you will never see more than one control group harassing. When one harass the main, another expo its too haphazard to control. Even a pro if given arbiters, dark archons, corsairs and templars for free and full of energy won't be able to web, stasis field, mind control, storm with full efficiency and in a timely manner.
Sigh...
Not every game is perfect but the theory & tech patterns are quite calculated, and yes, it's quite close to perfect. This doesn't mean they don't have shitty games when it really matters or that it isn't possible for progamers to lag behind for moments at a time. However it is a good thing that this can still happen because, as i keep saying, it kt eeps the game competitive, it gives more room for someone else to get ahead or fall behind. That's the whole point.. It's a factor that keeps the game competitive.
This game isn't supposed to be easy, it's supposed to be fucking hard. The moment players are playing 100 precent perfect games... even 98 percent perfect games we're fucked. Don't you get it? This point your making has become so redundant by the MBS side and works against the whole framework for a competitive game. We need to raise the skill ceiling, not lower it.
|
On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive.
But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day.
However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now?
So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference?
And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army.
But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before.
Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further.
And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
|
Making the UI harder is not the "right" solution because although it does raise the skill ceiling and leads to newbies having even less chances, it is just wrong from a RTS design viewpoint.
What Tasteless (and other anti MBSers) are saying is in essence: "if the UI is too easy, then the game will be too easy, and pros will have nothing left to do after a certain time/experience/skill level."
But this whole train of thought is just so sad. SC2 should make sure that the game itself (NOT counting the UI) is so hard and deep that this alone provides a high skill ceiling and endless opportunities to improve. You know, like chess or Go or whatever. The best games are the ones with an extremely easy UI yet insanely deep gameplay. SC2 must try to become like this.
If it doesn't work, then Blizzard didn't do a good enough job and they maybe should introduce SBS and other "UI obstacles" again. But remember that this is just a workaround, not a proper solution: the game is too shallow, too easy to master, so we have to make the UI hard.
But that's just a "bad" thing (although it certainly works, as SC1 has shown us) and I hope that SC2 improves on that... tries a better, different approach.
|
On December 11 2007 15:03 YinYang69 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 12:06 MyLostTemple wrote:
Mondragon beat savior because he had the good spawn on paranoide andriode, the one that mines 15 percent faster. But i do agree this game is more than just micro and macro, it's the metagame as well. The point is that the micro and macro keep the meta game interesting and competitive.
SC progamers are already VERY close to playing perfect games, they make little if any errors, but it's the errors they can make that can turn the game completely. That's the point, we want a thrilling sport to watch.... we want opportunities for competition, room for endless improvement.
Don't say that MBS and automining is only 'lowering the bar a little bit', Every competitive player i've spoken with worries it will have HUGE ramifications, and after playing it, i share their concerns. No tasteless they are not perfect not even close. They might have nearly perfected the early game timing and early game pushes hell early game anything. But going to late game or mid game things get far too shaky. Minerals will bill up, they can't micro/macro as efficiently cause minerals sky rockets from 3+bases. There will be plenty of times when their production buildings are idle, when they are in such a rush their building placement gets sloppy and leads to base getting cluttered up or stationary defense not being in optimum location, idle workers everywhere, queuing more than 3 units in a building etc.
I think BW is a game that is not possible for humans to perfect, but that's the beauty of it. There's always so much to do that if you lose your concentration for even a few seconds you can be so far behind that one push ends it. That is the thing that makes SC outrageous to some people, they think they'd win if only they could have the mechanics. They don't like the idea of having both because, they are after all just casual players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
