|
On September 06 2012 11:31 Sbuiko wrote:
I like it. It's closer to how it worked in BW too. Don't like the line thingy tho. Maybe instead of that dashed line, they could just extend the existing scan circle animation to a much bigger radius, while reducing it's opaqueness a bit. It would look less artificial that way.
I'm Protoss player and really really like this idea. Remove that ugly circle denoting the radius of the scan, and just make the initial sparkle scan animation large enough to show the entire area that was actually scanned.
PLEASE, THIS!!
|
+1 for this change, the scan animation was always misleading and how many times did u hear the following from casters: "oh, go check his vision if he saw xy with that scan"
|
On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans?
I totally agree.
|
On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree.
1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do.
2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game.
3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck.
|
I like this change. There was a rather large degree of guessing to whether or not he saw certain tech structures with his scan. Adding this is like making the camera in a third person shooter better. Sure, it makes the game easier, but it's the good kind of easier, the kind that is removing stuff that is annoying and not just difficult.
|
On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck.
Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy.
The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills.
Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management?
|
On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck.
If uncertainty is not skill why not give total map vision to everyone so their is no uncertainty to what anyone is doing or where they have moved their army the idea that removing uncertainty from the game is good is flawed and leads to interesting strategy and decisions during games.
If you remove uncertainty you also remove the ability to gamble such as I'm gambling that scan did not see my Dark shrine so I'm not going to cancel it. If you know for certain though it removes that from the game completely and Skill and a good understanding of the game counts for less as even if the Dark shrine is not seen by the scan a look at what the scan does see can give you an idea of what you may have missed by the unit count and what type of units etc (protoss has mined a lot of gas but their aren't allot of stalker sentry their but their is allot of zealots where did that gas go)
The change is dumb and removes certain elements from the game which don't need removing and punishes Terran only and only benefits the other races.
|
On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck.
1. Doesn't matter, the argument is for consistency here.
2. The whole point of Observers are as Scouting Tools as well as Detectors. Overseers are also used for both Scouting and Detection, though obviously they aren't as effective for Scouting, they still are used for both. And unlike them, Scans are temporary.
3. Look at previous responses for this one.
|
As terran i like this change. If you recall, in bw, you would always hear the sounds of a comsat scan, so you would always know when a scan was placed anywhere.
and the animation in sc2 is bullshitty compared to the range of the scan
|
|
|
On September 07 2012 05:35 Warpath wrote:
As terran i like this change. If you recall, in bw, you would always hear the sounds of a comsat scan, so you would always know when a scan was placed anywhere.
and the animation in sc2 is bullshitty compared to the range of the scan
SC2 gives you a sound too and the animation is so much more obnoxious and obvious than the sparkly stars of brood war
|
|
|
On September 07 2012 05:39 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:36 redemption wrote:On September 07 2012 05:35 Warpath wrote:
As terran i like this change. If you recall, in bw, you would always hear the sounds of a comsat scan, so you would always know when a scan was placed anywhere.
and the animation in sc2 is bullshitty compared to the range of the scan SC2 gives you a sound too and the animation is so much more obnoxious and obvious than the sparkly stars of brood war Obnoxious? lol...
Whether or not you agree with the word choice of "obnoxious", it is undoubtedly more obvious than the sparkly stars.
|
On September 07 2012 05:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck. Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy. The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills. Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management?
Most of that is typical "sc2 isn't bw!!" stuff.
That's your own feeling on what the game should be. Personally, I have nothing against mechanics (and I think it's important to include them in the game, and wouldn't necessarily be against more in SC2) but I despise limiting the player with a bad ui. The UI, as with every other UI, should be a clear and responsive way for the user to interface with the game.
The thing with scan is it's not a unit. That's the main sticking point and the thing people aren't taking into consideration. If an overseer comes into your base to scout, it's down to your knowledge of the overseer's vision range so you know what it saw. The other player controls the unit to try to get the information they want, and you control space with your units to deny it. It's a unit with which you can interact. It's a gameplay thing.
Scans are not like that at all, and that's why I took issue with them being compared to units in-game. There's nothing you can do to stop a scan going off in your base. There's no "good play" involved in stopping them; they'll see what they're going to see whether you're MVP or a bronze scrub. Sure you can hide stuff, but that's nothing to do with scans.
That's why scans should have their vision range shown. If you can't use good play to deny its vision, you should have knowledge of what it saw, because after it fires it's a UI thing, not a gameplay thing.
To clarify, because I know this is wordy:
If an overlord/overseer/obs/whatever gets in your base and scouts a vital tech structure, it's your own fault for not denying that. There's a strategic process of placing units which can deny scouts in the right place, and a mechanical process of controlling your units to do the actual denying (stutterstepping marines/stalkers/queens to shoot down the overlord, for example). If you don't care what they see, you made a strategic decision to not deny them and that's fine too. Or you're bad, which is also fine because it's something you can improve on.
If a scan goes off in your base, not only is it no longer controlled by the terran that fired it off, it's static and you can't deny it. It makes sense to show what it sees.
This is only talking about scans as a scout. Scans as a detector are similar.
Edit: And please don't compare game mechanics between sc2 an dota2, they're completely different games and as such gameplay comparisons are at best invalid and at worst a waste of everyone's time.
|
On September 07 2012 05:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck. Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy. The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills. Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management?
Great post.
|
Can you (the opponent that is) see the yellow circle on the minimap like the sensor tower?
|
On September 07 2012 05:47 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck. Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy. The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills. Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management? Most of that is typical "sc2 isn't bw!!" stuff. That's your own feeling on what the game should be. Personally, I have nothing against mechanics (and I think it's important to include them in the game, and wouldn't necessarily be against more in SC2) but I despise limiting the player with a bad ui. The UI, as with every other UI, should be a clear and responsive way for the user to interface with the game. The thing with scan is it's not a unit. That's the main sticking point and the thing people aren't taking into consideration. If an overseer comes into your base to scout, it's down to your knowledge of the overseer's vision range so you know what it saw. The other player controls the unit to try to get the information they want, and you control space with your units to deny it. It's a unit with which you can interact. It's a gameplay thing. Scans are not like that at all, and that's why I took issue with them being compared to units in-game. There's nothing you can do to stop a scan going off in your base. There's no "good play" involved in stopping them; they'll see what they're going to see whether you're MVP or a bronze scrub. Sure you can hide stuff, but that's nothing to do with scans. That's why scans should have their vision range shown. If you can't use good play to deny its vision, you should have knowledge of what it saw, because after it fires it's a UI thing, not a gameplay thing. To clarify, because I know this is wordy: If an overlord/overseer/obs/whatever gets in your base and scouts a vital tech structure, it's your own fault for not denying that. There's a strategic process of placing units which can deny scouts in the right place, and a mechanical process of controlling your units to do the actual denying (stutterstepping marines/stalkers/queens to shoot down the overlord, for example). If you don't care what they see, you made a strategic decision to not deny them and that's fine too. Or you're bad, which is also fine because it's something you can improve on. If a scan goes off in your base, not only is it no longer controlled by the terran that fired it off, it's static and you can't deny it. It makes sense to show what it sees. This is only talking about scans as a scout. Scans as a detector are similar. Edit: And please don't compare game mechanics between sc2 an dota2, they're completely different games and as such gameplay comparisons are at best invalid and at worst a waste of everyone's time.
Not being able to stop it is a tradeoff for:
1. The scan being temporary. The detection is temporary. And you essentially give up 300 minerals to use it every time.
2. The scan not having any guarantee of seeing anything important. It's guesswork, so you can take the time to put tech structures where the Terran is less likely to scan.
The tradeoffs are enough so that at the very least you can take the time to learn the range of the scan. Observers have the tradeoff for being Cloaked, I guess we should make the cloak easier to see so it's easier to take them down I guess.
Most Terran players would trade Observers for Scans any day of the week. Most Zergs would probably do the same for Overseers. Yet you don't get to see the Observer's detection and vision range. There is no more point in taking less skill out of the game to deal with Scan.
I'd argue that's really what it comes down to. Learning the range of the scan is a comparable skill to learning to spot the distortion of cloaked Observers. Learning the range of the scan is the easier skill to learn, yet that's the one Blizzard chooses to make easier.
|
On September 06 2012 11:22 FataLe wrote:I'm a Protoss player and I hate this change. It didn't need to happen and it's just one more thing to add to the easierness? of the game. 
Easierness?? Honestly: By making the rules of a game easier to understand, you don't make winning easier!
Football has simple rules, but the effort it takes to win is always determined by the opposition.
The game should display information to the player adequatly. With this, players can now see the radius. This was always intended, otherwise: Why should the enemy see you scanner sweep at all?
Blizzard has balanced this (very strong) ability in the mindset, that the opponent can see what is scanned.
I honestly have no idea why some people here act so ultra-conservative. SC1 is still there to play, if you really think extrem hard to control interface is good for the game.
|
On September 07 2012 05:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck. Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy. The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills. Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management?
This
When will people realize that it's not THIS change in particular that is bothering us, it's the actual direction that blizzard is taking with the overall difficulty of the game? This thing in particulars makes a difference between someone who knows the actual scan radius, and someone who don't, so the guy who actually do know the radius has an advantage. Know how we call this? Skill cap.
Same thing with workers rallied to minerals doing auto mining at WoL... yes the BW war is tedious, but it rewards the guy with the extra apm to go back to his nexus faster to tell the new probes to mines. It actually makes a difference where in WoL, that difference is gone.
I said earlier in the thread that this game is mostly about build order wins, compared to actual mechanics. That is a little more FINE in BO5 and BO7, but guess what? ladder are BO1 (they never thought about implementing a BO3 and BO5 ladder option though... but that arcade garbage is fine..)
There is just overall frustration with many "hardcore" starcraft fans, who don't really want BW2, they just want a real successor to Brood War. Please try to understand this.. if we wanted an easy game, we'd play MOBA. I'm tired of seeing maxed out armies deciding the outcome of the game in one big fight, I want ingame harassment, lots of bases, and no 1 base allin or 2 base timings.
And that frustration is multiplicated when we know Blizzard DOESN'T listen.
|
On September 07 2012 07:20 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:16 Grumbels wrote:On September 07 2012 04:53 SgtCoDFish wrote:On September 07 2012 04:39 Moonsalt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:38 dabom88 wrote:
You can't see how far the detection radius is for Missile Turrets, Spore Crawlers, Photon Cannons, Ravens, Overseers, or Observers.
Why do you get to see the detection radius for scans? I totally agree. 1) You can have many of these detectors, meaning there could be a lot of ugly lines everywhere, and they don't disappear after a set amount of time like scans do. 2) Scan is a scouting tool as well as a detector, and that's where this is most important. You know if your cloaked unit is detected (by scan or other detector) because things start shooting it. That's a normal interaction between units and is a gameplay thing. The scan texture not being as big as the sight given is a graphical/ui issue that adds uncertainty into the game. 3) Uncertainty isn't skill. The skill in reacting to a scan of your important tech structure comes from the decision of whether or not changing your tech would be wise and in knowing your opponent's likely reactions to what he saw. If you don't know if he saw it or not, it's a coinflippy clusterfuck. Starcraft thrives on vagueness. It's one of the reasons why Brood War was superior to Wings of Liberty, it's because people begged long and hard to make the game more about 'strategy', so all the really difficult mechanics were addressed. Heart of the Swarm simply takes this one step further, information is more clearly defined, easier to understand and utilize. From now on you do not have to get a feel for saturation numbers of for detection radius anymore. Blizzard now provides this information as input for your strategy. The problem is that strategy is rather boring. If you look at your typical game, then honestly most players play the same popular builds over and over again, since it's so easy to copy what successful players are doing. A lot of match-ups are quite trivial, especially zerg often 'just' has to turtle into brood lords and all the fuzzy feelings-based aspects to this game that allow players with superior game sense to do well are one by one eliminated just so that eventually everyone can execute the same rote strategy at the same level. I honestly think it's bizarre the community is still so obsessed with strategy, it's as if so many have so little respect for all the beauty inherent to paying attention to all the small little details and utilizing them correctly. There is so much more to this game than just strategy and unit control, it really is so much about a certain mystique where frequently you have no solid information and have to depend on visual processing or pattern recognition (i.e. game sense or 'feel'). Making everything clear and streamlined honestly won't make the game any more fun, it will just allow you to better execute your 2 base timing attacks without being bothered by the fact you have little experience with the game and lack essential cognitive skills. Imagine if during the development of DOTA2 Valve had decided that the game really needed to be about picking hero compositions, item choices and lane divisions. They could remove all skill-intensive abilities of the game (last kills, denying, aimed shots) so that it would again be more about strategy, all to reward the smarter player. But why is someone with knowledge and analytical skills superior to someone with the superior cognitive abilities required to excel at unit control and economy management? This When will people realize that it's not THIS change in particular that is bothering us, it's the actual direction that blizzard is taking with the overall difficulty of the game? This thing in particulars makes a difference between someone who knows the actual scan radius, and someone who don't, so the guy who actually do know the radius has an advantage. Know how we call this? Skill cap. Same thing with workers rallied to minerals doing auto mining at WoL... yes the BW war is tedious, but it rewards the guy with the extra apm to go back to his nexus faster to tell the new probes to mines. It actually makes a difference where in WoL, that difference is gone. I said earlier in the thread that this game is mostly about build order wins, compared to actual mechanics. That is a little more FINE in BO5 and BO7, but guess what? ladder are BO1 (they never thought about implementing a BO3 and BO5 ladder option though... but that arcade garbage is fine..) There is just overall frustration with many "hardcore" starcraft fans, who don't really want BW2, they just want a real successor to Brood War. Please try to understand this.. if we wanted an easy game, we'd play MOBA. I'm tired of seeing maxed out armies deciding the outcome of the game in one big fight, I want ingame harassment, lots of bases, and no 1 base allin or 2 base timings. And that frustration is multiplicated when we know Blizzard DOESN'T listen.
Showing more game information isn't going to make the game "easier" at a level that matters. It's going to make the game less "volatile". I know that volatility can be an exciting factor, but some people would rather see the best play be rewarded.
And being a "hardcore" Starcraft fan doesn't necessitate that we all feel the same way you do. We can disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
