EPTSimply demanding the game to be a SC remake won´t work either - compare WC2 and WC3. MBS is not a central issue for me, I just don´t want the same burdersome control again. In that light a compromise could be even worse than a proper SBS implementation.
[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 25
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
Simply demanding the game to be a SC remake won´t work either - compare WC2 and WC3. MBS is not a central issue for me, I just don´t want the same burdersome control again. In that light a compromise could be even worse than a proper SBS implementation. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
 ).Every BlizzCon goer admitted that macro was way too easy. Cow says Zerg macro is even easier. This compromise (not being able to hotkey multiple buildings) would solve that. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On February 03 2008 01:04 maybenexttime wrote: Isn't being unable to hotkey multiple buildings while being able to either shift-select or drag-select your buildings a good compromise? It requires either hotkeying different structures under separate keys or taking your attention from the battle to move the screen over your base in order to macro properly. This would make Zerg macro more balanced too. What do you think, guys? From what I gathered, pro-MBS people rarely care about being able to hotkey multiple buildings, while for anti-MBS players it's the main concern. Only problem I can see off the top of my head is that it breaks the game logic - every other time you select multiple units or buildings, you can group them to a hotkey, so why not unit-producing buildings? I wouldn't be surprised if many players think it's a bug the first time they try, and not a feature. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
| ||
|
Meh
Sweden458 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
Macro is an important part of starcraft, and its implemented in a manner that requires some effort to perform well, just like micro. And thats exactly what Blizzard should preserve in SC2, even if they change the methods of macro somewhat. If you're looking for a game that isnt "tedious", get a turn based game. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
The mayority of the new players will (propably in the 1st campaign mission just like SC) build two barracks, doubleclick and expect to have selected both. How would you explain to them that they would not be able to do that? Especially if they don´t care about tournaments or Korea and the like. Why should Macro require mechanical effort? It should require planning, guessing the enemys strategy and adaption. RTS is about merging 2 completely different skillsets. Micro should on it´s own serve to keep your hands warm. Macro is about keeping your brain busy. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On February 03 2008 07:06 Gandalf wrote: What do you mean by tedious? That you have to click for a couple of seconds to macro? Well, then, micro is far more tedious. Why cant a zealot that is hurt move back by itself? Its got a brain, it should know its hurt and move back. Why do we have to do that, thats just stupid and tedious. Macro is an important part of starcraft, and its implemented in a manner that requires some effort to perform well, just like micro. And thats exactly what Blizzard should preserve in SC2, even if they change the methods of macro somewhat. If you're looking for a game that isnt "tedious", get a turn based game. Once a player realizes a zealot is hurt, it takes about two clicks to move it back: one to select the unit, the other to issue a move order. Once a player realizes that it's time to build a new wave of 10 zealots from their 10 gateways, it takes 20 clicks to produce the units: a click on each building to select it and a click on 'z' to produce one zealot from that building. The problem is one of conception: the player's conception with the hurt zealot is to move that zealot back, and they can accomplish it with 2 clicks; but the player's conception with building the zealots is to build one wave of zealots using all their available gateways, yet it takes them 20 clicks to do so. That's 10x more clicks to accomplish a macro action than a micro action. Also, the zealot could be in need of retreat at any time during the battle, and could be anywhere on the screen at the time; on the other hand, a good player should always have their buildings in similar if not exact places and configurations every game to minimize unit-producing time, and unit production occurs at relatively regular intervals, so it becomes a relatively rote, and therefore mentally and physically tedious, action compared to the dynamic nature of micro. Search for static and dynamic actions in the previous MBS discussions to see my more in-depth explanation of this point. The way the SC2 team seems to be approaching these tedious macro-mechanical actions is by making them less attention-intensive, and therefore minimizing the impact that they have on the players' enjoyment of the game. Now this decision has consequences: the multitasking that emerges from the attention players had to spend on these actions is without question mentally interesting, and so the "attention gap" that results from this decision must be minimized. There are two ways of minimizing the attention gap: 1) Design MBS so that players who put more effort into micromanaging their production lines (by using more control groups and going back to reorganize groups based on the situation) are rewarded with increased productive efficiency; and 2) Design new attention-intensive macro-related gameplay elements that are more mentally/physically interesting. Evidence of the former approach is clear in CowGoMoo's description of MBS: Multiple grouped buildings can only produce simultaneously if they are all empty at the time the order is given and there are enough resources to build one unit in each of the grouped buildings, thus encouraging more control groups and reorganizing control groups throughout the game to maximize productive efficiency. Evidence of the latter approach can already be found in warpgates and reactors/tech shops, and this is even with the relative paucity of macro-related information from Blizzard (as marketing obviously feels that people would be more interested in the units). There are also several good ideas to be drawn from other games with MBS, such as the ones I described earlier in this thread (mass mining, construction/production/supply assisting, and adjacency bonuses), and from the community, for example Fen's idea of reverse queueing which at least for warpgates I think is a great idea (the queue limit should be small, though, to prevent timing attack abuse). | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
Where do we draw a line? edit: Also why shouldn't they introduce auto-production of units like in Age of Mythology? Maybe some players find telling their Gates to produce more Zealots every time the production of units they queued finishes "tedious"? Why do I have to pay for a unit the moment I queue it up? Why can't I pay for it the moment my Gate starts training it? This makes just as much sense as SBS or being unable to hotkey multiple structures with MBS... | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On February 03 2008 07:06 Gandalf wrote: What do you mean by tedious? That you have to click for a couple of seconds to macro? Well, then, micro is far more tedious. Why cant a zealot that is hurt move back by itself? Its got a brain, it should know its hurt and move back. Why do we have to do that, thats just stupid and tedious. Macro is an important part of starcraft, and its implemented in a manner that requires some effort to perform well, just like micro. And thats exactly what Blizzard should preserve in SC2, even if they change the methods of macro somewhat. If you're looking for a game that isnt "tedious", get a turn based game. totally. 'Tedious' is running up and down a football field, throwing and catching a baseball...checking your balls are bouncy in tennis (and just in general day to day life) 'Tedious' activities are in all sports. It's a slippery slope from MBS to having the game make all mouse clicks for you and you just saying 'send a couple of probes to scout for mines' to the computer. At which point you are playing the most ludicrously simple game of rock paper scissors. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Anyway, people observing this criticism have pointed out the same can be said of FPS games. It's a bit silly to test an in itself meaningless skill of 'aiming'. Problem is, no one has been able to create a competitive video game based on decision making alone. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On February 03 2008 08:55 maybenexttime wrote: Where do we draw a line? Again, RTS are a mixture of skillsets. The Strategical part is dealing with the base(s) and resources. That one is about making desicions - Macro. "APM" should be irrelevant for performance here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <- Here´s the line. The other "side" is Micro, the Tactital part. Ordering around units and using them to the optimum of their abilities. This one is about, well action. Let loose on the "APM". If BOTH parts end up being about APM then there will be only 2 types of players: The quick and the dead. That´s what we call a Action game. Like (non-team) FPSes. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On February 03 2008 00:51 Unentschieden wrote: That argument is repeated over and over like it would eventually turn true. That wasn´t the case in SC. The concept was made famous in CnC and became famous as the "Tank Rush" - synonymous for bad balance. If viable outproducing the enemy is always better than outperforming (on the battlefield) because of the various risks interhit to the styles. SC went against that by making combat units utterly useless without babysitting. For example Siege Tanks: useless if not sieged in the correct position. We can expect SC2 to eventually introduce a lower time investment revenue cap to the economy. Meaning that eventually both players can´t improve their production (around their expansion strategy) so they actually have to take risks to get the upper hand. Yes. Because we all know if you dont babysit your tanks they dont attack. On February 03 2008 10:56 Unentschieden wrote: Again, RTS are a mixture of skillsets. The Strategical part is dealing with the base(s) and resources. That one is about making desicions - Macro. "APM" should be irrelevant for performance here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <- Here´s the line. The other "side" is Micro, the Tactital part. Ordering around units and using them to the optimum of their abilities. This one is about, well action. Let loose on the "APM". If BOTH parts end up being about APM then there will be only 2 types of players: The quick and the dead. That´s what we call a Action game. Like (non-team) FPSes. Instead of Action we could call it Real-Time! | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
On February 03 2008 08:52 1esu wrote: Once a player realizes a zealot is hurt, it takes about two clicks to move it back: one to select the unit, the other to issue a move order. Once a player realizes that it's time to build a new wave of 10 zealots from their 10 gateways, it takes 20 clicks to produce the units: a click on each building to select it and a click on 'z' to produce one zealot from that building. The problem is one of conception: the player's conception with the hurt zealot is to move that zealot back, and they can accomplish it with 2 clicks; but the player's conception with building the zealots is to build one wave of zealots using all their available gateways, yet it takes them 20 clicks to do so. That's 10x more clicks to accomplish a macro action than a micro action. Thats a completely unfair comparison, and thats why these threads get so long. You're comparing microing ONE zealot to macroing from TEN gateways. Really? By the time I have ten gateways, I should have 3+ bases running, so ten gate macro should be compared with microing more than just one zealot. If you're going to talk about one zealot, talk about one gateway. I select it, hit z, and there, my macro off one gateway is done with 2 clicks. For some reason it failed to occur to you that armies can comprise of more than one unit, and you've presented a totally unfair argument. So lets suppose I have a near maxed out protoss army, while playing versus terran. Ive got a couple dozen zealots, a couple dozen dragoons, some templars, a couple of arbs, and a shuttle with 4 lots in it. I go in. The shuttle starts taking fire from turrets, but I forget to unload the zealots in it, simply because I'm preoccupied with controlling such a big army. But thats just stupid, its so unrealistic. Is the pilot of the shuttle brain dead, or the zealots in it? Why dont they unload themselves when the shuttle is taking fire and its OBVIOUS its going to die? If I was on a plane that was about to be shot down, I'd jump! Blizzard needs to realize zealots are living creatures and have brains! Or when my goons get all stuck because I didnt position them well before going in, why dont they scramble away and form an arc? Why do they keep taking heavy splash damage, clumped up like that? Are they stupid or something? Why dont my arbs stasis clumps of tanks on their own? Its so tedious having to select an arb, then stasis what I want to. Why shouldn't Blizzard automate all of this??!! So compare 10 gate macro with 170 supply micro. If I were to micro that army perfectly, by giving attention to every single units, I'd need a hell of a lot more clicks and work than a measly 10 gate macro. In fact, I'd require 20x more clicks to micro that army. On top of that, macro clicking is somewhat simple; micro is much more complicated. I could complain, how tedious. I think blizzard should make SC2 so that micro is either automated, or no one can micro at all, just to keep the playing field even. After all, having to click with your mouse in a video game is just so tedious. This talk of realism and tasks being "tedious" is just too subjective. Anything that requires more clicks than a certain player desires can be labeled "tedious" that way. I could say having to spend so much effort attacking a terran contain is tedious, but its not. It requires micro, and its fun. It requires attention, it requires a lot of mouse and keyboard control. And so does macro. And all these things put together create a sense of urgency and an atmosphere of tension in starcraft, feelings that no other RTS replicates. So when you talk about pro or anti MBS arguments, stop making pointless arguments like what is tedious or not or what is realistic or not. The ultimate purpose of the game is to be fun, long lasting, and competitive enough to perpetuate the pro scene. Without MBS, without one of the core, defining components of starcraft, the game might sell well for a year or two, but it will never duplicate the run starcraft has had. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
It's actually micro's complexity that makes it more mentally interesting than macro-mechanics, since micro actions actually change depending on the situation (dynamic), whereas macro-mechanical actions are relatively the same regardless of the situation (static). Static actions are "tedious" compared to dynamic actions, which makes them less intrinsically fun in comparison. I think the goal is for the UI changes to reduce the amount of effort players must place in these less interesting actions, and add new dynamic macro-mechanical elements like warpgates, reactors, assisting, and Fen's reverse-queueing to keep the multitasking bar high (to keep the tension and urgency). It'll make for a more interesting, and thus more fun, game overall while still keeping the competitiveness intact, imho. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On February 03 2008 08:55 maybenexttime wrote: The same can be said about micro. Why can't I tell my units to retreat (e.g. to my main) at below 50% health like in Dark Reign 2? Why can't I simply press "x" for 'scatter' to avoid Lurker spines? Why do I have to manually tell my units to attack the units they counter best and those which have the least health? Why can't I just press a-move on the ground to do that? Where do we draw a line? edit: Also why shouldn't they introduce auto-production of units like in Age of Mythology? Maybe some players find telling their Gates to produce more Zealots every time the production of units they queued finishes "tedious"? Why do I have to pay for a unit the moment I queue it up? Why can't I pay for it the moment my Gate starts training it? This makes just as much sense as SBS or being unable to hotkey multiple structures with MBS... As I and others after me have repeated time and time again, the line is drawn where the player makes a decision. Telling your units to retreat is a decision. Telling your units who to attack is a decision. Telling your gates when and what to produce is a decision. Queueing a unit is a decision, and the game makes it an interesting one by making you pay for it ahead of time. Scattering is a bunch of small decisions on where to retreat your marines so that they avoid the lurker spines, as opposed to a single retreat decision which would get your marines torn up. With macro-mechanics, the player makes a single decision to build x units out of y buildings, but the number of clicks needed is 2y. Compared to the number of decision-click ratio of the above example, this clearly can and should be improved upon. The "attention gap" that results can be filled with macro-mechanical elements that require decisions. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
The UIs job is to keep the desicion/action ratio as close to 1 as possible. That way the games number of "required desicions/minute" can be maximised. A bad UI artificially slows the game down, at least on the mental side. A good UI allows for more actuall interaction with the game - making it more interesting. | ||
|
HunterGatherer
118 Posts
| ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
| ||
| ||
