EPTInterviews: Louder, Chill, PsyonicReaver - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:36 BlackYoshi wrote: So you guys just want the Brood War AI? Got it. Realize that you are a very small minority, and people just want their units to work when they click to attack another unit. Even today, "competitive" SC players are a minority compared to the people who play BGH games or 3v3s for fun. You all need to realize you're a small niche market and that the improvements won't cater to you because a lot of the stuff you want really isn't enjoyable for the common user (the awful attacking/movement AI of units in SC, especially if they had to go up ramps, or how unintuitive it was to do a surround because of how bad the pathfinding was) You just want your units to do everything for you? Got it. Wc3 Path finding would do fine as well by the way Units not being to move up a ramp properly is what made the game much more strategic. Holding those high ground expos with a ramp was a big benefit because a small force could often times hold twice its size. Other than that nothing can be called awful. | ||
|
viletomato
Canada277 Posts
Easier Gameplay (Auto surround) ---> Caters to casual gamer 'Harder' Gameplay (No Auto surround) ---> Caters to the hardcore crowd Casual gamer numbers > Hardcore gamer numbers So here is the contradiction that Blizzard faces... how can you cater to the hardcore and casual at the same time? You can't. You have to choose one or the other. UNLESS there is an option in game to switch autosurround on and off. But then you have a non-unified game and you have a divided community. I don't think that is something that Blizzard will implement. At this time many people will say, since Blizzard wants to cater to the majority and make more $$ for the business they will cater to the casual gamer. To this I respond: The popularity amongst hardcore gamers gives rise to the incentive that the casual gamers want to play the game and become hardcore. For example, some guy knowing nothing about sc sees jaedong on TV in korea and picks up the game because of the hardcore following. So I think catering to the Hardcore is very very important in attracting casual players to play the game. Think about how many noobs have watched pro korean players on youtube and picked up starcraft in the last 10 years. If there wasn't a pro following at all (based on crappy gameplay) you think any casual gamer would want to play the game past 2002ish? Heck no, it'll be forgotten just like all the other games that never stood the test of time. So my thoughts are: Catering to the Casual ---> Ensures an initial boom of players, Big bucks for the first 3-4 years and then a dying fanbase and $$ trails off. Catering to the Hardcore ---> Ensures the longevity of the game. Lets just assume initially not as many players will play comparing to catering to the casual, but will generate cash for blizz in form of TV and tournaments over the next 10 years. $$ comes in for a long amount of time. I really think option 2 is the better choice.... no casual gamer is not going to play SC2 just because there is no autosurround... they don't follow it, they don't even know what it is. I'm sure blizzard has thought about all these things, and have stuck with their decision. | ||
|
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:36 BlackYoshi wrote: So you guys just want the Brood War AI? Got it. Realize that you are a very small minority, and people just want their units to work when they click to attack another unit. Even today, "competitive" SC players are a minority compared to the people who play BGH games or 3v3s for fun. You all need to realize you're a small niche market and that the improvements won't cater to you because a lot of the stuff you want really isn't enjoyable for the common user (the awful attacking/movement AI of units in SC, especially if they had to go up ramps, or how unintuitive it was to do a surround because of how bad the pathfinding was) Right, and the problem here is that one of blizzard's goals is to sell to a gazillion people (this they will accomplish no matter what, although UI improvements or whatever it is 'we hate' help) while their other goal is to make a stable, longstanding E-SPORTS GAME (ie what BW is/has done - this will also sell a gazillion copies but in a longer timespan). These aren't necessarily complimentary goals, usually if an RTS has neat features and is fun casually it means it has little or no long term depth. SC2 may or may not follow this pattern, but the current build definitely raises an eyebrow or two. | ||
|
szm
4 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:23 BlackYoshi wrote: Do you guys even want a sequel? Or did you just want a reskinned Brood War, with all the same AI flaws? What is your exact suggestion to "add micro" back in to the game? People on this site want a worthy successor for the best competitive RTS game ever, a game that you can enjoy and improve at for years to come. | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:36 BlackYoshi wrote: So you guys just want the Brood War AI? Got it. Realize that you are a very small minority, and people just want their units to work when they click to attack another unit. Even today, "competitive" SC players are a minority compared to the people who play BGH games or 3v3s for fun. You all need to realize you're a small niche market and that the improvements won't cater to you because a lot of the stuff you want really isn't enjoyable for the common user (the awful attacking/movement AI of units in SC, especially if they had to go up ramps, or how unintuitive it was to do a surround because of how bad the pathfinding was) We realize this, which is why I originally said I don't think Blizzard will change these things. What are you arguing with actually? Because no one says this game will sell more copies if they take out these things. The only argument brought up is that it'll be more competitive long term and more suitable to high end e-sports. Blizzard has shown to care about some of these factors, moreso than other gaming companies. Who knows what they will do. Personally I think it's a shame non-Blizzard companies prefer a high selling quick gimmick over building a really solid reputation that will take you decades. SC2 is going to sell huge enormous numbers solely based on the reputation Blizzard has. That is the reputation of being able to build a game that can be played at the highest level 10+ years after the release. | ||
|
lgd-haze
Sweden547 Posts
Dumb unit + smart player > dumb units. Atm, the reaction time of units feels like playing ICC on extra high latency and no antihack. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:37 heyoka wrote: Cite a source please. The only number I've ever heard were ~11million for SC and ~5 for WC3 (their wikipedias agree but doubtful those are accurate). Well, Blizzard hates giving out proper numbers. Surprisingly they gave out Starcraft's sell numbers in an earnings call a while back (11 million), and we know that the Diablo franchise had sold 18.5 million when Diablo 3 was announced. Rob Pardo said at GDC 09 that Warcraft 3 was their most succesful game before WoW. You can draw your own conclusions and interpretations from that. Anyway this whole conversion is horrible offtopic and I apologize that I even brought it up. | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
| ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:24 Vasoline73 wrote: Bendez you are trolling hard in this thread man. And if you aren't then youre doing a good job of not making your occasional valid ideas seen through your bs generalizations. Smoke/grass cover is just a gimmick if there's no skill involved microing 24 lings v 24 lings or using a zealot and a probe to harrass a SCV line. And believe it or not, there are control points in SCBW, they're called chokes, high ground, ramps, ridges, etc. You don't need a designated "control point" to have points important to control on a map, it's called positioning, which I've seen little of in SC2. It's not interesting to see one SCV chilling at a watch tower and gaining vision of the map early game... like, it sees nothing a majority of the time and it's useless because army positioning is less important in SC2 anyways. What is interesting is tank positioning on strategic points of the map in TvT, or using mutalisks to keep a terran in his base so you can establish a third, or sneaking your army to the high ground on Neo Tornado so you can contain a protoss at his choke... what's interesting about having a single unit chilling at a watch tower? :/ And btw, destructible terrain is in BW... temples? Generators? Eggs? Etc? All those things like "this expansion can only be unlocked when you break this down!" has been done before. Look at Hitchhiker, Battle Royal or Neo Arkanoid as examples. There's plenty. It's not innovative at all because its been done in BW many times over. Smoke/grass cover is not a gimmick. It breaks line of sight, so one could use it to their advantage. For instance, I've seen a replay by KHB where his banelings were hiding behind a smoke to ambush marines. When I said strategic points, I was talking more like COH strategic points, hope that clear things up. Map control does not equal Controlling strategic points. As for destructible terrain in BW, you're right. It is just that SC2 integrated it better and designed maps around it. | ||
|
orangeshines
United Kingdom202 Posts
Yeah it will be quite an additional development effort to implement this but will it not be worth it? | ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
Rather they should have the following text over the move button: "This unit is on a move command, but may at the discretion of Blizzards AI algorithm start chase an enemy worker, or engage a bunch of of zerglings, or greet with a group of zealots despite being severely outmatched". I'm positive they've done this to please the hordes of noobs who know no better than to right click in every conceivable situation in an RTS game. I also agree about the micro part. The AI is just too smart, there's hardly any point in setting up an arc before a battle because by the time your forces reach the opponents' troops they will have clumped up again. Running away with units positioned in a horisontal line and at the same time attacking with melee units is impossible since they clump up in stupid formations everytime you click. And if you try to manually select, say, 3 out of 6 zealots and move them into position before you attack their move command just fucking turns into an attack command and you end up with 3 zealots charging and 3 running away, so you start spam clicking move again and they return into their stupid clumped formation. | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
On February 25 2010 22:24 bendez wrote: But it is not gone. You are speaking as if there is auto-surround button that you can click and forget. You still need to micro your lings to kill that early scout, anticipate its route and then close in. In SC2, units move from point A to point B faster by taking shortest route, react and respond more quickly (ex. when issued to change direction), and rarely get stuck. Yes the units are smarter, but these improvements shouldn't completely diminish the micro element. Just that the impact you had on these kind of situations has gotten way less and is thus way less demanding for a player('s skills). Trust in what people like Nazgul, Smuft and ret say. They know what they're talking about and what a worthy successor of SCI should consist of (competition wise). Of course SCII is not made particularly for the hardcore progaming fans but this is TL.net, this is the mecca of korean progaming outside korea and of course the one big question here is whether SCII will develop to a degree where it can be said that it provides(/demands) the same level of play(/skill) we saw in SCI. I find the chess comparison very good. Who would really want to play a form of chess where the board may look a bit more fancy but the game itself has been simplified for the sake of the masses? (Not the ones who cherish the deep and complex form of the original game) | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On February 25 2010 23:05 bendez wrote: Again, there is no "auto-surround" feature. Units know the most effective route to reach an enemy unit, and as a result, they surround the unit. You yourself said that you want units to know the shortest distance possible. In SC2, they did just that. Do you even have the beta to comment on this? | ||
|
Sadist
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On February 25 2010 20:57 ret wrote: I really hate how in sc2, micro is almost non existant. Combined with the easy macro, you have a really dumb simple game right now that almost anyone can be good at. >.< OMG ITS RET!!!!!!!!! Thats basically my opinion  | ||
|
Drazzzt
Germany999 Posts
| ||
|
Squallcloud
France466 Posts
Apart from the "auto-surround" which is as already said just better pathing. (A-move some glings against zealots they'll just try to hit him in the back if there's already a gling in front) What's exactly the micro missing from SC2? I'm trying to understand since so far i find the game enjoyable to watch and play. | ||
| ||
