|
On March 17 2008 09:04 BlackStar wrote:
You don't stop playing to think about something.
No, but you can never play faster than you think. Every action you execute is a thought, if that thought is not there you wont do anything. The rest is just the physical part of moving the mouse to the right place or pressing the right key, or even a sequence that is trained long enough to become a reflex so you do not have to think about that particular move creating biological macros.
Usually low apm comes from players thinking to slow, not moving their mouse to slow. I mean even FPS junkies can move the mouse extremely fast while still maintaining deadly precision. Whats the difference? You don't have to think a lot to realise that you should point and click at your opponents head.
|
On March 17 2008 09:04 BlackStar wrote:
That makes no sense.
Making decisions doesn't take time. Well, it doesn't take time away from playing.
You don't stop playing to think about something.
Adding more decision making skill or depth to the game doesn't mean you have to make something else easier. Let alone just to compensate.
Take unit production for example. You have to decide what number and type of units you are going to produce in this wave based on a variety of information, and then you make the clicks to execute that decision. The decision takes time, it's just that most decisions in SC are simple enough that players can learn to make them very quickly.
But if you want to add more complicated decisions, then you have to worry about how much time is taken up by execution. Otherwise, everyone will prioritize the simpler decisions over the more complicated ones, unless the benefit of the latter is so great it eclipses the time advantage of the former.
|
More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.
The only exemption here is something like chess where there are more game trees than the total processing power of the universe. Computer games are fundamentally not chess because there are in fact more restraints on game flow.
|
That's a good point. I think there should develop a new genre from RTS games where there are many many more 'game trees' which the game can follow.
I mean, right now if you open with a proxy cheese, if that attack does some damage but is actually defended so that both players are equal, then the middle and late game will be basically standard.
In some way the gameplay should be more dynamic so that each game is more unique and less linear.
One way to do that is to use the map as a dynamic factor in the game. Imagine the map is not just the map like it is now, but that it is also the playing board for a go-like game. Players basically 'edit' the map while playing the game as usual. And how the map evolves during the game of course also influences the basic gameplay we already have.
|
On March 17 2008 09:45 naventus wrote:
More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.....
Right, but isn't the mechanical execution part of the game just as automatic/instant?
Its just my opinion that strategy/multitasking is the more interesting part of the game than the mechanical execution part. I'd rather the game be developed to have a much deeper/complex gameplay when it comes to strategy. While I acknowledge the immense skills it takes to be a keyboard wizard, it just doesn't appeal to me that much. I'd like to think I'm more of a general rather than a squad leader.. which was the case in Warcraft 3.
And again in my humble opinion, its the crazy/risky/unique strategies that progamers pull off onscreen that amazes the audience. I think it should be the complexity of the strategies that make it difficult for above average/decent/average/noob players to duplicate rather than the mechanical aspect.
|
1. Any given strategy can be duplicated even by D level players. Knowing when to duplicate it is a different issue - this is what makes strategy exciting and compelling.
I also want to point out that great strategy doesn't have to be complex. It's only complex in the sense that you need to really understand everything about the game/whatever subject to come up with it in the first place. But looking back, we might say that a lot of the things that players invented might seem obvious now.
2. You mentioned multitasking is an interesting part of the game. The issue is not that MBS removes keyboard presses, but that it removes multitasking.
3. The fact is that even the most complex decisions can be trained to be instantaneous, or close to it. Examples include brilliant mathematicians, great chess players, etc. - anyone that is sufficiently great enough at their art will have mastered it to the extent where their understanding is intuitive. There is no decision in a RTS complicated enough to take 10 seconds every minute. Adding more abilities, techs, or upgrades will not change that.
What I am saying is this - for average players, they need to understand (and perhaps never will) that no matter how smart they think they are, there's no good game where you can expect to sit there without rigorous training and somehow "outthink" a better player. You aren't a general, you can't roleplay one because you are a fucking newb.
I point this out because your opinions are NOT valid. Would you, as an amateur painter, go to an art forum and claim Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed? Why is it then that you think you have some sort of grasp of SC that a better player doesn't have? Have some humility and STFU.
|
Isnt multitasking and quick decision making what make up a rts, seems all the people that seem to want to be able to out think their opponent should look for some good turn based stategy games...meh
|
Somehow, most competitive games have been designed as games in the first and then talented and obsessive players stirred and pushed their mechanics to the extreme toward the highest level of competition. Game developpers may or may not have followed the trend, letting balance crumble or like Blizzard, catering to the competitive scene. To the point where people can make a living of it (of course with unparalleled training schedules)
Now, it looks like SC2 should be designed for this level of play, that is designed for people with abnormal level of training and dedication. Most points against MBS are quite valid, I must admit, that I imagine players may not have to focus away form battle as often as before, provided they they perfectly set their production and income flows. The outcome of this still lies as theoricraft, but I do understand the reasoning behind sticking to SBS. But you may understand why other people can fell it as utterly wrong, people feeling that the first player base of the craft series, is now looked down and put aside because the pro scene doesn't need a large player base anymore. Don't tell me the competitive scene would have been the one we know without a large player base in the first hand. And definitively, SC was not designed as a tedious, difficult to play rts on release, it was quite easy to pick up, compared to the standards of the day. Ten years later, I'm witnessing a reverse of values, with basic players flagged as lazy morons whose claims may hinder the supreme level of play.
They express the will of putting the focus on decision making, and the answer is certainly that rts wise, the player level is paired with execution, not decision. It's a misunderstanding. The question is having to cope with rewarding and interesting execution. Have I prepared a counter for this harass, where did I put them, can I set a trap for those muta, have I checked his expansion, is my mineral line defenceless,etc ? Simple tasks that become exponentially difficult to cope with time pressure, to the point where basic mistakes are done, garrison units forgotten, and ressources wasted. Average players express the will to train their focus on this, instead of training to go through a dull production loop. Players and some pro scene followers, hoping to witness more interesting feats. Still super quick decision making and execution, but more related to what happens in game than mechanically defined by the UI.
|
On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote:
Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped.
That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped".
WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
|
Yes. Starcraft should'nt give up ambition on it's second iteration. Blizzard are already seen as overly conservative by most gamers. Today, what I see of Terrans is quite depressing, core units unchanged, and the remaining changes like sniping or drop pads still scorned by some people on these forums. We don't want to end with BW terrans against SC2 Protoss and Zergs, don't we ?
|
On March 17 2008 16:44 naventus wrote:
What I am saying is this - for average players, they need to understand (and perhaps never will) that no matter how smart they think they are, there's no good game where you can expect to sit there without rigorous training and somehow "outthink" a better player. You aren't a general, you can't roleplay one because you are a fucking newb.
I point this out because your opinions are NOT valid. Would you, as an amateur painter, go to an art forum and claim Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed? Why is it then that you think you have some sort of grasp of SC that a better player doesn't have? Have some humility and STFU.
God, I cannot agree more.
People also need to realise that this is a RTS game. It is a modified version of a turn based strategy game. Its modified so that speed is a major skill as well as strategical skill. If you think that speed shouldnt be a defining factor, then your in the wrong game genre.
|
Yes, no question the rts genre is about speed. The question is what this speed should be dedicated to, and pro MBS people don't expect it to be cycling through production buildings. Other dumb tasks are handled by the UI. What make it so special the line had to be drawn here ?
|
On March 17 2008 18:35 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote:
Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped. That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped". WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
I could be wrong, but I think BlackStar's point is that StarCraft is not a game where "thinking" will suffice. Just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you actually can. Much of playing the game is the physical execution of the motions - being able to both macro and micro at the same time. There will never be an RTS that is simply a game of "thinking." As BlackStar pointed out, we already have that in chess. There is no physical execution in chess - if you can think of a move, you can do it. However, in StarCraft, you can think of a strategy that involves incredible micro with flawless macro, but it is not always possible to execute such strategies if your APM is 50.
|
On March 17 2008 19:13 Seelys wrote:
Yes, no question the rts genre is about speed. The question is what this speed should be dedicated to, and pro MBS people don't expect it to be cycling through production buildings. Other dumb tasks are handled by the UI. What make it so special the line had to be drawn here ?
Starcraft is a game of equal micro vs macro. You in theory want to spend half your game on each action. Now of course currently starcraft is about 60 - 40 in favour or macro, but idealy it is a split down the middle. MBS and Automine I predict will bring this ratio to about 20 - 80.
If we wanted a micro game, we'd be playing warcraft 3. Warcraft 3 also has a macro to micro ratio of about 20 - 80. We want an even split macro/micro game. A 50-50 split. So if your going to remove so much of current macro, I would like some other macro to be added in. However blizzard currently has no plans to do so. Hence why MBS and Automine are bad features, as they destroy the balance. If blizzard added somehting else in, then I would be fine with MBS and automine. However until that day, I will not change my stance on this matter.
On March 17 2008 20:41 Centric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2008 18:35 Unentschieden wrote:On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote:
Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped. That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped". WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games. I could be wrong, but I think BlackStar's point is that StarCraft is not a game where "thinking" will suffice. Just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you actually can. Much of playing the game is the physical execution of the motions - being able to both macro and micro at the same time. There will never be an RTS that is simply a game of "thinking." As BlackStar pointed out, we already have that in chess. There is no physical execution in chess - if you can think of a move, you can do it. However, in StarCraft, you can think of a strategy that involves incredible micro with flawless macro, but it is not always possible to execute such strategies if your APM is 50.
Couldnt have said it better myself.
|
20-80 ratio ? So you're saying that production building cycle accounts for more than 50% of the whole BW macro nowadays ? Doesn't this scream for some revamp ?
I proposed some clues to give players something to use their focus with. Why aren't there more proposals toward this objective rather than pressuring Blizzard to stick with openly restrictive UI ?
Anyway I highly doubt SC2' micro would ever have something in common with WC3, would the MBS have the effects you describe. Most units are designed as expendable and devasting effects occurs on a regular basis. We are not speaking of the slow hit point badass warcraftish ones.
|
On March 17 2008 21:19 Seelys wrote:
20-80 ratio ? So you're saying that production building cycle accounts for more than 50% of the whole BW macro nowadays ? Doesn't this scream for some revamp ?
I proposed some clues to give players something to use their focus with. Why aren't there more proposals toward this objective rather than pressuring Blizzard to stick with openly restrictive UI ?
Anyway I highly doubt SC2' micro would ever have something in common with WC3, would the MBS have the effects you describe. Most units are designed as expendable and devasting effects occurs on a regular basis. We are not speaking of the slow hit point badass warcraftish ones.
If you are surprised at the 50/50 ratio, you obviously do not play/watch SC at the caliber at which MBS would be detrimental - especially in this style of macro-heavy play that has recently become very popular. That might explain your confusion as to why so many of us are opposed to MBS and the repercussions we see coming from it.
SC has been successful for this long with that ratio (give or take a little on each side), and in removing it, you just have another RTS set in space without a lot of the difficulty and depth that makes SC so incredible. One of the largest parts of SC gaming is that micro/macro trade-off.
If you simply add micro-intensive features (like extra spells or new unit gimmicks) to "give players something to use their focus on," you are still removing the macro while increasing the micro, thus skewing the ratio and making SC2 into a game that is completely different form SC, and one that will have far less success as a competitive e-sports genre.
|
I don't play SC as this level (I don't play it anymore at all), I just watch games. And I can see how macro heavy they currently are, but this give me the feeling that all distracting/deceptive manoeuvers aren't worth it, in front of raw overwhelming production. This deters the player from showing the depth games could have, imho.
I didn't speak about the 50-50 ration between micro and macro, but of the 50-50 ration between cycling through production buildings and all other macro tasks. At least, it sounds this way to me since you foresee a huge shift toward micro with MBS.
I didn't speak about micro intensive features, but macro additions (I consider all task aiming at army production as macro), read again. Optimizing and securing ressource income, tweaking production, can't account for micro. This was the spirit of my propositions.
|
i think blizzard should make MBS an option which you can turn on and off and have 2 ladders - one with MBS and one without. so everyone can choose what they prefer and like.
the pros and bw player will of course play the non-MBS ladder and after some time it would be more popular to play without MBS and even international tournament rules will say that the MBS has to be turned off.
it's like the gamespeed in starcraft. blizzard intended to set the speed "fast" as the standard game speed. but for us players it was too slow and it were us players who set the new standard as "fastest".
we should be for "Pro-Choice"
|
On March 17 2008 18:35 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2008 08:40 BlackStar wrote:
Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game.
Not denying that maybe a purely decision making game would theoretically be better. But competitive games haven't advanced enough for that. And that's why I also play chess.
And that will 'hurt' those 60 APM players who played SC 8 years ago and never got into multiplayer but want to in SC2. But that can't be helped. That annyos me more than it should. You basically admit that a RTS with "Chess like" depht would be good but "we are not there yet". Also that SBS would negativly impact new Players but "that can´t be helped". WHY NOT? SC2 is supposed to become the "next Gen" RTS that sets new standards. SC basically established 3 Races in RTS. Why shouldn´t SC2 pull of a similar feat? Pre-SC 3 races was a neat idea but "they weren´t there yet". Blizzard has no excuse not to act as quality inovator. They did it with each of their previous games.
It has already missed the chance to become the "next Gen" RTS. If the hard-core StarCraft scene would not have gotten involved or would not have existed then maybe SC2 could have become the game that takes RTS to the next level. Or maybe it could have become another shitty RTS.
But, thanks to the hard-core SC scene SC2 will be a standard sequel building upon original SC.
But to call it next gen? SC2 seems extremely retro (not necessarily something bad).
I do agree with your main point however.
|
There is some serious extraggation going on. MBS so influentional that it would turn the game essentially turn-based? Significant enough to demand it´s own ranking?
The small mechanic has been turned into a symbol for a completely different type of gameplay.
Maybe not on purpose but Black earlier essentially trivialized the depht of strategy in SC, as if there is somewhere a list on the Internet that lists "what counters what" for units/Build orders and therefore everyone is equally good at "thinking" because it is hardly more complex than "rock beats scissors".
"Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game."
Well, it should. He even used chess as example that strategy CAN be used to differinate players - hell SC2 might adapt the ELO ranking system from chess.
The issue is that he does not regard the mechanic itself is bad - but the inability of Blizzard to implent it and therefore turn the mechanical factor of gameplay insignificant. But since the strategy or "thinking part" is so shallow the game would end up bad.
IS strategy in SC THAT shallow?
Edit:
But to call it next gen? SC2 seems extremely retro (not necessarily something bad).
So was SC. Next gen isn´t about some new nice feature (look at bullet time for example) these don´t define next gen. Next gen is a reference for everything after it, a new standart.
Half Life bought NOTHING revolutionary but the kind of immersive storytelling (not the story itself)became reference.
Or as used before - 3 balanced races. Lots of games had way more than 3 races - but these either were effectivly the same or unbalanced. SC also set a bar in support - early games have obvious bugs and glitches today.
Far Cry made smarter KI enemys desierable- before they were "not there yet" and therefore didn´t have to be in a game. Now everyone asks: "why are these spacezombies so dumb?".
Looks are the same though but these grow without problem because
1. "Easy" to implement. (compared to new AI routines)
2. Loads of support from the industry - Hardware producers know that they need demanding games to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
