EPTEvery click counts (or should it?) - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17329 Posts
| ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
On December 30 2009 13:01 Manit0u wrote: It's time for a thread title change to "Every dick cunts". Despite my disagreement in this thread... I misread this title. Ugh. EDIT: Must be browser settings or something... | ||
|
pioneer8
United States143 Posts
Expect things that come from WC3 like - being able to "shift-build" multiple buildings, control grouping multiple buildings in one group, being able to cast single spells from a group of casters, rally point mining, the use of the tab key to cycle through unit types in a group... These things make the game more fun imo, and from an amatuer's point of view, allow you to more easily play at an acceptable speed without all the clicking involved in macroing units. (Example: You want to mass zealots out of your gateways. In Sc1 you have to click or hotkey to each gate and press z. In Sc2 you can hotkey all your 20 gateways and and have 20 zealots in two clicks.) Being able to easily mass troops while controlling your forces allows you to do more in less time and puts the focus more on unit control and strategy, the more fun part of the game to me. From the pro's perspective, i think it only serves to INCREASE the level of play. There are less clicks, but you are doing more in one click than you used to be able to do. If you can maintain the same amount of clicks, you will be doing more. Expect in SC2 pro matches the mineral count to rarely go above a few hundred, even late game. I think it will make the game all around much better. Also, take into consideration the pro scene in WC3. While Koreans are still dominant as in SC, they dont hold a monopoly over the top tier of play and there are a few Europeans as well as Chinese who play at the highest level and win consistently. Expect more foreigners competing at the high levels in Sc2. Having the game shift to more time focusing on unit control and strategy, with less time "uselessly clicking," will allow foreigners to compete better IMO. I have little doubt though, that the Korean pros will be excellent as they are in all RTS it seems. Just my thoughts, i think the more streamlined macro system will be better for all, and am 100% sure it will be included. Maybe take some time to play some WC3, maybe some Wc3 UMS to get used to it. It will definately make you more skilled at Sc2 to be more comfortable with the interface. You'll see how much faster and pleasent it is to shift build 12 barracks, double click one, control group them and start massing, and return your focus to the game, rather than have to go through all the "unneccesary clicking." Cheers  | ||
|
PastrySC
Denmark13 Posts
(Example: You want to mass zealots out of your gateways. In Sc1 you have to click or hotkey to each gate and press z. In Sc2 you can hotkey all your 20 gateways and and have 20 zealots in two clicks.) Actually in SC2 I'm pretty sure it's 21 button mashes for 20 zealots :-) If you're using all warpgates, it's 21 button mashes and 20 mouse clicks... Someone correct me if I'm wrong | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 22 2010 18:35 pioneer8 wrote: Expect in SC2 pro matches the mineral count to rarely go above a few hundred, even late game. I think it will make the game all around much better. thats a bad thing if everyone can macro without much effort the games gonna be alot more boring for several reasons. play style will be alot more homogenized than sc1 since there will be no macro style players, everyone will have good macro. alot of people recognize that and say its ok cuz macro games are less entertaining. what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro. and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro. so no, it wont make the game better. | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
| ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote: what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. | ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote: As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. If it were say sc1, typical muta harrass involves 11 mutas. If he splits them up so its 3/4 mutas at 3 different spots, they won't be able to kill any marines/turrets ever. So even thought it might take more multitask, it will be hurting the zerg overall to keep mutas in groups of 3's. You can't multitaks with pure micro because, at least in sc1, micro oriented harrass usually involves very few units. (11 mutas, drop ship, shuttle.) Unless you are going mass muta, drop ship, or shuttle, but in which case its not really harass anymore. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On December 30 2009 13:01 Manit0u wrote: It's time for a thread title change to "Every dick cunts". I love how the Recent Posts bar on the left makes it indistinguishable from "Every dick counts" and it really does keep me coming back to this thread. | ||
|
DoX.)
Singapore6164 Posts
On January 23 2010 00:52 tedster wrote: I love how the Recent Posts bar on the left makes it indistinguishable from "Every dick counts" and it really does keep me coming back to this thread. seriously rofl ^_^ | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
If it were say sc1, typical muta harrass involves 11 mutas. If he splits them up so its 3/4 mutas at 3 different spots, they won't be able to kill any marines/turrets ever Is there some Set-In-Stone reason why you'd only harass when you have 9 mutas? Why not harass when you have 27? Or 18? Sure, it would be later on in the game, and eat up more gas, and the enemy will have more defences in place, but it would be the job of the gamer in this hypothetical SC-with-easy-macro to work out if that's viable, and how and when and where to make it go, if so. You can't multitaks with pure micro because, at least in sc1, micro oriented harrass usually involves very few units. Well 3 times very few is still only a few, and anyways, what SC1 'usually involves' doesn't translate into what SC2 is, or should be. There's no Iron Law of Real Time Strategy that says you can't use your excess multitasking time for harassing/fighting/scouting on more than one front with more units, if spamming workers and building units isn't eating up so much of your attention as it does in SC. Sure, given how Starcraft plays, the designers of SC2 would not be doing their job if fast people with good multitasking skills couldn't find some way of exploiting them to give themselves a big advantage in SC2, but I don't really see evidence of that happening, and I guess that Dustin & co are well aware of these issues. SC2 will only be broken if a significant number of winning strategies don't actually need those sorts of skills. | ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
As to whether or not Dustin and co can make a highly competitive game to match SC:BW's legacy, we don't know, but if they keep dumbing it down eventually its going to feel like civilization with speed becoming a non-factor. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5614 Posts
On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote: As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. To add to what IdrA said. 1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. You might as well do this in SC2. 2. Is it viable in-game? Not really. You'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off. 3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport? Hardly. The screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will the audience miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to them. | ||
|
loupouk
France105 Posts
| ||
|
blueblimp
Canada297 Posts
On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote: 1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. I don't really agree with this. Starcraft already rewards multitasking micro in certain situations: Bisu-style PvZ and SK Terran, for example. Sure you're often not full-time microing any individual group (unlike Mutalisks), but it's to your advantage to create multiple engagements and put a little bit of micro into each. I expect Starcraft 2 to reward this kind of play to an even greater degree, given that macro will be a little smoother and there are a lot of mobile units. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On January 23 2010 06:59 blueblimp wrote: I don't really agree with this. Starcraft already rewards multitasking micro in certain situations: Bisu-style PvZ and SK Terran, for example. Sure you're often not full-time microing any individual group (unlike Mutalisks), but it's to your advantage to create multiple engagements and put a little bit of micro into each. I expect Starcraft 2 to reward this kind of play to an even greater degree, given that macro will be a little smoother and there are a lot of mobile units. Er... actually this would reward that style of play less, as players will be better at reacting to it in general and thus it's more of an assumption than something you can have be your "style" | ||
|
pioneer8
United States143 Posts
On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote: thats a bad thing if everyone can macro without much effort the games gonna be alot more boring for several reasons. play style will be alot more homogenized than sc1 since there will be no macro style players, everyone will have good macro. alot of people recognize that and say its ok cuz macro games are less entertaining. what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro. and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro. so no, it wont make the game better. Haha, funny that the only real pro player outside Korea disagrees with my thesis. From that perspective, i see what your saying about macro style and harass. Either way, I really doubt blizzard would downgrade their RTS interface, rather i expect them to expand it to even more streamlined than Wc3. We'll see i guess, i doubt they would revert to the old school macro system from their businss perspective, they would want to cater to the largest audience. I also think it will take the micro game to new heights and make the game more exciting, as players rely more on things like unit saving and amazing control and tactics, with less time focused on their base. I think it will be reminscent of Wc3 where you often times do not have time to macro, even simply pressing 5 f (to build footmen out of your hotkeyed baracks in this simple system), because of the incredibly blistering micro speed which the game competes at. I think this will be good for Sc2 and an upgrade from both wc3 and sc1. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On January 23 2010 08:15 pioneer8 wrote: I think it will be reminscent of Wc3 where you often times do not have time to macro, even simply pressing 5 f (to build footmen out of your hotkeyed baracks in this simple system), because of the incredibly blistering micro speed which the game competes at. There's no such thing as this. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
Also I find the kind of macro player who excels at clicking buildings quite boring... Someone who excels at micro is fun to watch, as is someone who plans his economy and timings perfectly, but if someone has the edge from multitasking unit production it isnt as interesting to see. | ||
| ||
