|
On March 18 2008 01:14 Seelys wrote:
What do you call too lightly ?
That they can just make a fun game and expect it to be great for competitive gaming if it's properly balanced.
You can have gameplay features that are fun and good or bad for competitive gaming. You can have features are good or bad for competitive gaming, but don't affect fun. They never thought about how they could change basic SC gameplay to give it more potential as an esports game.
I think they should have made an esports commission and get a review of every idea they had as seen from the esports point of view. And input ideas of their own. It would have been very hard to recruit the right people for the job. But they should have done that.
Your last comments are purely about describing high level players as being conservative and against any form of change.
The contrary is actually my point. First of, these people aren't conservatives or against change because they are or were high level players. And the point of having them is just to be able to add good changes. Because obviously that's what future RTS esports games need. That's also why SC was great. It had certain features, mainly through luck and coincidence, that no other game had but that made it great for esports. Why not consciously think about finding more of these kinds of features and adding them?
|
And which annouced features are you currently happily with ? I don't flag high level players as conservative by nature. But obviously they must be fond of BW current balance.
What would you state as changes the future e-sport need ? And more importantly, do you think it's too late to implement these ?
|
More dynamic play. Each game should be unique. Like a chess game. The possibility tree expands exponentially.
Like if you proxy gateway in PvT then in SC the late game could still be the totally normal and standard Carrier vs goliaths, for example. Imagine if you couldn't 'transpose' back to the standard game after opening with a creative unusual build.
If I knew how to do that exactly, I wouldn't tell you and become very rich.
Obviously this change needs a new dimension. If SC is a 4d RTS game, with macro, micro, strategy and multitasking, then we neeed a 5d RTS.
This is of course the most major issue that SC2 and even WC4 or SC3 will probably not address.
|
On March 18 2008 01:29 naventus wrote:
What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is.
Sure I do. You just have no clue. But that's to be expected, because you're a retarded troll.
I hate explaining myself to someone like you, but I will (just this one time though, you can just fuck off if you still don't get it): I'm hoping for Blizzard to change the current situation. Why the fuck do you think I don't understand why it is being played like it is?
Compare PvZ and ZvZ. In ZvZ the most efficient thing to do is muta/ling. Always. In PvZ the game can develop into completely different directions, making a lot of units viable in certain situations. PvZ, I think, is the only matchup where almost all units can come into play. Even queens can be used (Mondragon did it 1 or 2 years ago vs. Draco, and won. Game was on Longinus I think. And why am I telling you this? So that you can't say "fucking noob, no good player uses queens").
So at the end of the day, PvZ is way more diverse, interesting and strategically and tactically challenging than ZvZ. I want the same to happen in ZvZ, TvZ, TvP.
|
I agree with 0xDEADBEEF. But I don't think the UI has anything to do with it, at all.
I made a topic about ZvZ. We can discuss stuff like this there.
|
So the conclusion is : with current state of SC2, MBS must be more harmful to the variety of the game than the opposite, that is ?
|
The works of Van Gogh are indeed deeply flawed. Scars of color are garishly arranged in patterns that form Lilies and faces in our mind. The canvas is nothing but a patchwork of gashes in deeply contrasted colors, the contrast and visual violence of real life, capturing the essence of the clash in modern life.
Van Gogh's works are deeply flawed, fundamentally flawed to mirror the reality of the situation, the primal scars of humanity living so far out of their element.
|
On March 18 2008 01:52 BlackStar wrote:
More dynamic play. Each game should be unique. Like a chess game. The possibility tree expands exponentially.
Like if you proxy gateway in PvT then in SC the late game could still be the totally normal and standard Carrier vs goliaths, for example. Imagine if you couldn't 'transpose' back to the standard game after opening with a creative unusual build.
If I knew how to do that exactly, I wouldn't tell you and become very rich.
Obviously this change needs a new dimension. If SC is a 4d RTS game, with macro, micro, strategy and multitasking, then we neeed a 5d RTS.
This is of course the most major issue that SC2 and even WC4 or SC3 will probably not address.
I'm not entirely clear on what you meant on the second half of your post, but the first part caught my attention. I think that there needs to be this risk vs. reward dynamic in the game, its part of strategy.. and what I think makes the game competitive and fun. If you chose a rush strategy (such as a closer proxy base) naturally.. based on how much resources/time you dedicated to the rush, there would obviously be a risk/opportunity cost associated with it. That is, if the rush fails, my econ then is at a huge disadvantage/becomes more vulnerable. I think thats one of the beautiful aspects of games. I don't think you should have the complete freedom to choose one strategy without any risk/opportunity cost associated with it to some degree. So I guess the idea that you should be able to easily transition back to standard game after doing one type of risky strategy doesn't make sense to me... unless of course your opponent is a noob, then of course.
|
That's not the point. A strategy that can potentially give you an instant win should come with a big or huge risk to compensate, naturally.
What I mean is that there are only a few different ways to play a matchup. And if you proxy then that doesn't turn the whole game into a very odd one if the game was going to last beyond that point.
If in chess someone plays a very strange odd opening then the entire game will always be a legacy of that strange opening.
In SC the game will automatically transition back to the mainstream.
That's what I meant. And the only way to change that is to have a new dimension to the fundamental gameplay.
|
Isn't it that possible combinations outside of mainstream (for instance vult+tanks for TVP) may be balanced ressource wise, thanks for the dev, but unbalanced micro wise, that is too attention consuming to stay as viable options ?
I admit that SBS is surely a important balancing element when expansions and income explode, because it weights macro burden. With MBS, macro would be overly simple compared to microing huge armies. At the same time, openings are quite unnaffected by the UI. Still I don't see how increased complexity of micro may be beneficial, with unchanged macro dynamic :alternative options would have to be both ressource and focus balanced to simply exist.
BlackStar, have you an exemple in another franchise of something you would flag as fifth dimension ? TA had production, micro and army scavenging, but I wouldn't call it a new dimension.
|
Nah you are still the retard. I spent like 3 posts in a row trying to hammer it into your newb brain that more units in play does not mean a more complex or interesting game. ZvZ is an exception because it is terrible in both aspects, we get it.
But just because more units are used in PvZ vs PvT doesn't mean that there are necessarily more viable game trees.
A good example is in WC3 where Orc v HU might use 3 different production buildings for 4-5 different unit types in total - but guess what, there is still 1-2 overall timing/strategy in the matchup. Strategy IS NOT FUCKING UNIT CHOICE.
You have a ICCUP ranking DEADBEEF? Or do you not play this game and just theorycraft about it?
On March 18 2008 01:54 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2008 01:29 naventus wrote:
What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is. Sure I do. You just have no clue. But that's to be expected, because you're a retarded troll. I hate explaining myself to someone like you, but I will (just this one time though, you can just fuck off if you still don't get it): I'm hoping for Blizzard to change the current situation. Why the fuck do you think I don't understand why it is being played like it is? Compare PvZ and ZvZ. In ZvZ the most efficient thing to do is muta/ling. Always. In PvZ the game can develop into completely different directions, making a lot of units viable in certain situations. PvZ, I think, is the only matchup where almost all units can come into play. Even queens can be used (Mondragon did it 1 or 2 years ago vs. Draco, and won. Game was on Longinus I think. And why am I telling you this? So that you can't say "fucking noob, no good player uses queens"). So at the end of the day, PvZ is way more diverse, interesting and strategically and tactically challenging than ZvZ. I want the same to happen in ZvZ, TvZ, TvP.
|
I'm not picking sides here, but you don't need to have a high ranking in a ladder system to understand how the game works, and those kind of arguments are utterly retarded. It's like saying, your opinion doesn't matter because I'm better than you at the game. I for one have a good grasp of many starcraft aspects, I watch every vod, but I don't play often and as a result I'm not near a good player.
|
I didn't want to answer but since you insist on picking me up...
I didn't talk at all about strategy on the whole thread, so please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused competitive players to defend SBS to keep some kind of advantage so spare me with the opposite accusation. I never pretended to have been an above average player (depends where you put average, though) because I wasn't, and I don't intend to beat more dedicated players with some cunning skill I may believe to have.
I'm here to understand how high level play may shape the nex issue of the starcraft series, and to give some input on how more casual players feel about it. I still think this is an interesting place for debate, even if I belong to a minority.
If I wasn't targeted by the above post, I apologize, but still expression from all sides should be welcome.
|
On March 17 2008 23:30 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting.
Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now.
These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks".
SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. First off, starcraft is more strategically demanding then chess, you can go ahead and counter units in both games, in starcraft your timed. The game doesn't revolve around the units to become special, that is for the programmers, we have no say in the matter. If you want to make a game more strategic based build a map to revolve around an endless possible scenario. That way the players are given there guidelines they are given the basic information about the units, now they must cope with the map and with each other. Strategy is not numbers or who masses what units (for other posts) its how you react to your opponent and decide the ultimate route while micro and macro managing your short term and long term goals. For so many games the basics strategy and basic counters revolve around the map, how close and how far away from your enemy you are. Ultimately the distance and base positioning determine the fanciness of the game. If you want to see a good game play a map like blue storm or loki2 where you are forced to move your larger units around to get to your enemy's base.
|
On March 18 2008 08:09 Seelys wrote:
I didn't want to answer but since you insist on picking me up...
I didn't talk at all about strategy on the whole thread, so please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused competitive players to defend SBS to keep some kind of advantage so spare me with the opposite accusation. I never pretended to have been an above average player (depends where you put average, though) because I wasn't, and I don't intend to beat more dedicated players with some cunning skill I may believe to have.
I'm here to understand how high level play may shape the nex issue of the starcraft series, and to give some input on how more casual players feel about it. I still think this is an interesting place for debate, even if I belong to a minority.
If I wasn't targeted by the above post, I apologize, but still expression from all sides should be welcome.
I can see where you're coming from Seelys, and I do apologize if any of us here have made you feel insulted. The UI creation process for SC2 should receive input from both competitive players and casual players. That said, as of now, Blizzard has not presented to us a feasible way of incorporating MBS without severely dumbing down macro.
If you've read LR/SoG's posts on their play of SC2, I think LR in particular mentioned that in one day, his macro in SC2 was just as good (if not better) than his macro in SC1. That should not be. You should not be able to shoot a jumpshot in basketball consistently after one day of practice. You should not be able to hit the ball in baseball consistently after one day of practice. Things that require practice should not have such a ridiculous learning curve.
|
SC2 reminds me of Smash Bros Brawl. They removed tons of techniques in Brawl, and that spurned alot of hate. But people will move on an adapted, while developing new techniques. Its inevitable.
There are many arguments against MBS, and most of them valid. But MBS is the future. Sure, it will reduce the significance of macro, but we don't even know if that will significantly change the discrepancy between good players and bad players. It might just open up more opportunity for players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as unit choice, strategy, and micro.
Comparing SC2 to Warcraft III is a bad example in terms of macro (not saying anyone did, just in general), because Warcraft III has upkeep and heroes. I say give MBS time. Most pros nowadays are similar with respect to macro, and usually games are determined by micro, positioning, strategy, timing, etc., rather than being determined the way they were during the Gorilla's reign.
Just as how the primitive WC2 interface moved on to the more modernized Starcraft (go play Warcraft II if you don't know what I mean), so much Starcraft move into the modern phase of MBS. Only time can truly tell how it will affect pro games.
|
On March 18 2008 07:48 naventus wrote:
Strategy IS NOT FUCKING UNIT CHOICE.
It's part of it. And not an insignificant one.
Imagine chess with pawns only. Nuff said.
Now get out of here, kid. Go to the Battlenet forum. The 10 year old retarded newbs like you are all there. TL is nothing for you.
@FeArTeHsCoUrGe:
Yeah, that's what I think too.
|
MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
|
Once again, we seem to come to the agreement that we need more macro tasks if MBS is to be implemented. I really do hope blizzard is working on this.
|
On March 18 2008 11:42 valiance. wrote:
MBS isn't necessarily going to make SC2 a less competitive game, it just changes what makes it starcraft-like. Warcraft 3 is plenty competitive, it just has a different micro:macro ratio than SC. So Blizz adding micro tasks to balance out macro might keep the overall difficulty and competitiveness of SC2 the same as SC1, but it's at the cost of making SC2 feel more like WC3.
That said, MBS is NOT being added in order to make SC2 a more competitive e-sport game, it's being added so SC2 will have some appeal beyond the sc1 e-sports community. The increase in micro is a direct response to the increased ease of macro introduced by MBS.
I'm unsure if SBS would be a good tradeoff for Blizz. I don't know if the public would buy into an SC2 with SBS, and I don't know if SC1 die hards and Koreans can make SC2 the success Blizz wants it to be. The group of hardcore fans will be essential to the success of SC2 in any case, but Blizz needs to reach beyond nostalgic SC1 fans coming back for SC2, and beyond TL fans and beyond Korean pro gamers, and beyond fans of the pro circuit, to people who HAVE NEVER HEARD of starcraft in their lives! If they are too timid in making SC2 different from its predecessor, it will NOT be as good as it could be. Only a revolutionary, godly game could live up to the legacy of SC1, and I think being locked into the thought patterns of SC1 will limit the ambitions of SC2.
That said, without balance, without a viable pro-scene, you end up with a game like DoW, which lives on fluff and fun, but is unplayable AS A GAME. That doesn't make DoW a bad game, it's fun, reviewers liked it, and it has a community that has stuck with it through x-pack after x-pack, but it's nowhere near what it could be. It's not a classic, because it's not a good, balanced, competitive game. It's the balance that bred the pro-scene and is the cornerstone of SC.
I'm just worried that Blizz will not be able to find a way to keep the starcraft feel AND the difficulty of SC1. Adding MBS but not adding micro keeps the SC feel, but also makes the game a lot easier. Adding micro just makes SC2 into WC4. SC2 will never feel exactly like SC1, but Blizz should make an effort to find new macro tasks to keep the difficulty AND feel of SC2 intact.
I agree with this post. But I would like to add why SC2 would probably be better off with MBS.
Warcraft III is a very successful strategy game that is played vigorously on the pro level, especially in Europe and China, the latter of which the pro scene has been on a rapid rise.
The main reasons Warcraft III would not, or does not, appeal to certain players is due to Upkeep, Heroes, and items. MBS is not a factor here.
Starcraft II will attact new players who want to play a true strategy game without the Upkeep, Heores, and Items. MBS will make their interface easier, they will adjust better, and Starcraft II with MBS will become just as big, if not bigger, than Warcraft II, since many pro players like Moon, etc, and most Warcraft III players will move onto Starcraft II. (The majority of people who stay will either be hardcore players, or Defense of the Ancients players);
The only community that is criticizing MBS is us, the hardcore Starcraft fans. However, Starcraft II will be a very competitive game regardless of whether SC casuals, hardcores, and pros decide to move to it or not. This is because, as I mentioned before, a limited game like Warcraft III is still highly popular. New players will flood SC2, and new players will dominate it.
SC2 is not SC1. Yes, they will be limiting a strategical element of SC2 - macro - but removing MBS would only cater to players of a 10 year old game, who ( when considering the amount of players of all RTS's and the amount of new players who will move to SC2) are and will be a very, very small minority in SC2.
It would be very illogical for Blizzard to step back from MBS just to cater the crowd of a ten year old game. That would be similar to Java programmers reverting their code back to the binary 1's and 0's to cater to the old school hardcore programmers. New pro's will rise in SC2, and SC2 will be a success regardless of what the SC1 community demands of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
