|
Coming from the PoV of an SC noob who knows aoe3, aok, wc3, ra2, ee, dow...SC is the best RTS hands down simply because of the feeling of chess you get about it. If you want an adapting-to-luck skill-based game you go poker. If you want a pure numbercruncher you go chess. If you want the best of both worlds PLUS a stupid amount of multitasking and unlimited various skills, you go SC man!
It's the ultimate authority for micro AND macro challenge. But it's really ALL about the multitasking...the macro...and how much you want to put in your game, the intense timing involved in knowing exactly when to expect things to be built and when to make the next unit. Because micro is easy because you only ever look at that screen...micro is the most 'clicky clicky' thing ever...who the hell could possibly say that constantly multitasking around the map on 4 different expansions is just clicky clicky?! FFS! Clicky clicky would be oh look...more spider mines...there's a space where there are no spider mines. The collective of gamers orders spider mines creations...very wells ¬¬ lets us do its, millions of spiders mines everywhere ¬¬ thats makes us pro.
It's the fact that ppl like boxer take whatever they want from macro and then use their micro. It's the fact that FFS you DONT HAVE TO FOCUS ON MACRO TO WIN BUT YOU CAN IF YOU WANT...LIKE LOADS OF PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID.
Imo if you take like halve the macro challenge you still have exactly the same challenge for micro you just are forced to focus on it more.
Talking about re-distributing skill levels seems completely insane imo. It's redistributing what skills people focus on yes but not redistributing HOW much ability each skill requires. You are just diminishing one skill, you clearly aren't boosting anything...that's so obvious.
Sure, when games like aok and SC were out, loads of other games had the same limited UI...but the point is that by fluke that was the perfect amount of UI. For example auto-heal by medics is miraculously useful but not noobifying. It seems imperative that Blizzard stop MBS and automine before they are too late. SC is the pro game and all other RTS's (except for perhaps godly TA and aok) are less pro.
|
You should be a Diplomat. Thats exactly what TL.NET wants to hear, word for word.
Black made a lot of good points in his last post but I still wonder: is there anything that could be improved about SC UI?
|
On January 27 2008 07:43 almostfamous wrote:
For anti-MBSers, do you have a problem with selecting multiple defensive structures, or just unit producing structures? I can understand (and could probably deal with) only unit producing structures being SBS, but it really isn't fun to select the defensive structures and tell them who to target one by one.
No, not a problem at all. The only thing that could be said against this would be that cannons might be imbalanced. But balance issues are no problem, blizzard can handle them with no sweat.
MBS is great for cannons, lifting/dropping supply depots, setting rallypoints etc. Just not producing units.
|
There is very little chance that Blizzard will remove MBS and auto-mine entirely - casual players and reviewers will hate not having them, and they're making the game for them as much as for competitive players.
It's slightly possible that there will be multiple options, but still most people would be mystified as to why the bad-interface option is even necessary, and it also threatens to split the community.
As for my personal opinion, I'd say not having MBS in a modern RTS makes about as much sense as not having mouselook in a modern FPS.
|
On January 27 2008 18:59 gravity wrote:
As for my personal opinion, I'd say not having MBS in a modern RTS makes about as much sense as not having mouselook in a modern FPS.
Please stop these bad analogies.
|
On January 27 2008 19:07 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2008 18:59 gravity wrote:
As for my personal opinion, I'd say not having MBS in a modern RTS makes about as much sense as not having mouselook in a modern FPS. Please stop these bad analogies.
It's not a bad analogy at all, it's perfectly apt. Both are issues where the innovation allows you to do what you want to do (aim, build) more easily in terms of physical controls without actually changing the rules of the game (ie they don't make anything automatic as such). Both make the game easier in a way and hence reduce "skill", but both are very desirable. In fact, mouselook has a much bigger impact than MBS would, but if you suggested that keyboard aiming makes for better competition, you'd be laughed off the face of the Earth, and quite rightly. I'm sure some people thought Quake was noob compared to Doom because of mouselook back in the day but they were wrong, just as those who think SC2 will be noob because of MBS are wrong.
|
Then how good of an analogy is: "MBS in an RTS is like autoaim in an FPS."
It's removing execution so players can focus on decision making.
|
On January 27 2008 19:16 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2008 19:07 ForAdun wrote:On January 27 2008 18:59 gravity wrote:
As for my personal opinion, I'd say not having MBS in a modern RTS makes about as much sense as not having mouselook in a modern FPS. Please stop these bad analogies. It's not a bad analogy at all, it's perfectly apt. Both are issues where the innovation allows you to do what you want to do (aim, build) more easily in terms of physical controls without actually changing the rules of the game (ie they don't make anything automatic as such). Both make the game easier in a way and hence reduce "skill", but both are very desirable. In fact, mouselook has a much bigger impact than MBS would, but if you suggested that keyboard aiming makes for better competition, you'd be laughed off the face of the Earth, and quite rightly. I'm sure some people thought Quake was noob compared to Doom because of mouselook back in the day but they were wrong, just as those who think SC2 will be noob because of MBS are wrong.
No, this analogy is very bad. Mouse-look doesnt reduce the skill required to play. It moves the skill to a different form of control which is equally if not harder to control. MBS just makes something easier, doesnt replace it with anything, and reduces the depth of the game.
I understand why it wouldnt make sense to leave MBS out due to technology. But they shouldnt be making the game with the idea of making it with the best UI features possible. They should be making it with a UI that suits the game. Supreme commander has a button which tells your producing buildings to constantly build a unit over and over. Thats a UI improvement. Should we include that in starcraft as well? UI improvements shouldnt be added just because they are the new technology, they should because it enhances the game. This is something that we belive MBS will not do. We believe that MBS will dull down the game instead of enhance it.
|
It is a good analogy but for different reasons than you are attaking it for.
The majority of Players will go to SC2 expecting a actuall UI. Disapointment is a killer for ANY Product.
How would you feel if they removed HOTKEYS? That would raise APM to numbers previously unknown but woul it be good?
With MBS and Automine inexperienced players will "loose" Minerals just like before - in the builings.
The time between production and production and reproduction will be more important. It is already Multitasking if you have to remember all you producing units construction time/building wich is actually harder when you DON´T return with the monitor to you´r base.
MBS will not remove any skill but shift it a bit. Control groups are actually limited, MBS will make it even more important to decide what to group and what not.
You could group all your production builings but that syncronizes your economy - ineffective at least compared to perfectionism that is almost natural to proffesionals. Like not having floating resources.
|
On January 27 2008 19:35 BlackStar wrote:
Then how good of an analogy is: "MBS in an RTS is like autoaim in an FPS."
It's removing execution so players can focus on decision making.
No, it removes the act of aiming totally, while mouselook just makes it easier and faster compared to keyboard look wich all the early fps's had. Mbs, same thing, it makes building units faster and easier compared to sbs, it doesn't remove the act of managing resources to build units totally like for example supcoms autobuild or the cnc way of not charging credits for queing.
So
sbs=keyboard look
mbs=mouse look
Autobuild=Autoaim
And im sure that if FPS's hadn't moved on to mouselook before the multiplayer era began there would be a lot of players thinking that mouselook is shit since it makes aiming to fast and easy allowing every noob to headshot people. Kinda how fps's are now, do you know anyone really who have troubble aiming? There is a minimal difference between a pro and an average player aiming in an fps today, if we had keyboard aim that would not be the case.
Why have it then? Well, people don't want to get frustrated on how hard aiming is compared to all other games, just like they would get frustrated on how hard it is to build units in sc2 compared to all other games if it wouldn't have the UI enhancements.
|
Sigh, can we stop with the crappy analogies. Analogies that relate gameplay mechanics between two vastly different computer games is going to get us nowhere in this discussion. The analogy was bad in the first place for this reason, so please for the love of god, can we not sit here debating whether MBS is equal to somehting in a FPS game or not.
Oh and to
How would you feel if they removed HOTKEYS? That would raise APM to numbers previously unknown but woul it be good?
This would drastically reduce APM. You didnt think your argument out very well.
|
On January 27 2008 19:35 BlackStar wrote:
Then how good of an analogy is: "MBS in an RTS is like autoaim in an FPS."
It's removing execution so players can focus on decision making.
No it isn't, auto-aim is more like auto-cast - ie it makes the decision for you. I'm not advocating auto-cast except for cheap buffs/debuffs like medic heal.
|
How so? Anything done by the press of a button would have to be replaced with mouse movements/clicks. It would make multitasking even more important since you either are so fast that you can replace all actions or you´d have to prioritize.
The effort is more and you´d get less done.
It is the main SBS argument isn´t it? Since you can´t control your forces entirely you either get faster or prioritize, the reallity is between that, thouse good at it are pro.
Imagine playing the game while disconnecting your keyboard. What takes more skill, is more tiring?
|
On January 27 2008 19:45 Fen wrote:
Supreme commander has a button which tells your producing buildings to constantly build a unit over and over. Thats a UI improvement. Should we include that in starcraft as well?
Auto-build doesn't really work in SC because you have to pay for units and buildings all at once. For example, if you were trying to save up 400 mins for a Nexus, you wouldn't want auto-build to suddenly use the minerals to make a few Zealots. It works fine in SupCom though and doesn't "newbify" that game any more than it already is.
|
On January 27 2008 21:15 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2008 19:45 Fen wrote:
Supreme commander has a button which tells your producing buildings to constantly build a unit over and over. Thats a UI improvement. Should we include that in starcraft as well? Auto-build doesn't really work in SC because you have to pay for units and buildings all at once. For example, if you were trying to save up 400 mins for a Nexus, you wouldn't want auto-build to suddenly use the minerals to make a few Zealots. It works fine in SupCom though and doesn't "newbify" that game any more than it already is.
Debate the point, not the example.
Sure I know that autobuild wouldnt work well in starcraft. The point is, that what we see from the UI of starcraft 2, the game will not have the latest and greatest UI, just one that is up to date. There are many UI features that will not exist in starcraft 2 such as unit formations and stances. Does this make the game bad because they dont exist? NO. They are not suited to starcraft's style.
You dont need to have the latest and greatest UI to have a good game. You only need a UI that fits the game itself.
|
That is a important point - UI functions must always be seen in context to the other functions. MBS had a small impact on WC3 since it had rarely more than 2 production buildings of the same kind.
The situation could be the same in SC2, if only the Production was effectivly spread out - it would´t make sense to group up several Production Buildings if these were spread all over the Map.
There are many points the SC2 UI could improve compared to SC1, for example the qeue tax, the need to select buildings to produce (see cnc), the ability to set AI macros for units...
A lot of them would "noobify" the game immensly more than MBS and a lot of changes do already, for example the "lazy peon button" (wich basically is automine).
MBS has a relativly high "comfort gain" while not effecting skill as much, seen as good trade by the pro-MBS.
Compare it to the qeue tax: It makes using the qeue a "mistake" since it takes up minerals. But it is a increased desicion layer. Even Pros use the qeue in some situations since ineffective production is better than no production.
MBS will add to this desicion making since sincronized production is worse than "SBS-Production" but better than no production, good players will have to decide what variant they want o use all the time in context of the current game situation.
Unlike what is often said here the "pure MBSer" is at a disatvantage compared to the "SBSer", just like the "qeuer" is at a disatvantage compared to the "single unit producer". But the best is still the one who can use the 2 styles depending on the situation.
Doesn´t anyone remember the change from WC2 to SC?
|
On January 27 2008 21:27 Unentschieden wrote:
The situation could be the same in SC2, if only the Production was effectivly spread out - it would´t make sense to group up several Production Buildings if these were spread all over the Map.
Please elaborate. I also dont understand another point youve made about why its bad to group multiple command centres, so before I respond, could you please exaplain them, just in case I misinterpret them.
|
On January 27 2008 21:33 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2008 21:27 Unentschieden wrote:
The situation could be the same in SC2, if only the Production was effectivly spread out - it would´t make sense to group up several Production Buildings if these were spread all over the Map. Please elaborate. I also dont understand another point youve made about why its bad to group multiple command centres, so before I respond, could you please exaplain them, just in case I misinterpret them.
Shure. SCVs becomme more and more ineffective the more you have on one position. going from 1->2 SCVs gives you more income gain than 20->21, if you indescrimately build SCVs all over the map without ever looking there you will loose efficiency. This becomes even more obvious if you remember yellow minerals - even inefficient mining of these could be better than normal mining of regular minerals.
Same with units. It is not important how many and what units you have but how many, what and WHERE you have them. It may not be inuitive but a unit at the wrong position at the wrong time is as good as no unit at all, hell even worse since you paid for it.
But if you start giving every expansion a different hotkey you will quickly run out. Even in SC you cant give everything a control group that you would want to have one.
For the player the "best" control group system would be one where EVERYTHING in the players posetion had a control group/hotkey.
|
Auto aim wouldn't decide for you who to aim at. It just makes sure that when you make a decision you have no problem executing it. No person will be beating you because they 'aim' better.
You don't want people to beat you in SC just because they can 'produce faster', right?
|
Wait wasn´t that the point behind "macro" oriented playstiles, the one that MBS (supposedly) would remove? What exactly do you want to say? Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
