|
On February 25 2010 22:45 viletomato wrote:
I see it as simply...
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.
BW falls into the harcore category and last time I checked its probably the most successful RTS ever made.
S Of course you can cater to both hardcore and casual. You have to favor one slightly, but theres no reason that the 2 extremes are the only option.
For example: Pathfinding improvement :Obviously ok, even for hardcore fans
Multiple unit selection: fine, more appeasement for casual people but still viable.
Auto surround: Now its ridiculous. Theres no reason casual gamers will stray away from the game because they don't have an AI doing all the micro themselves. Take improved battle AI away and you've appeased both sides. Easier to manage units, but microing skill is still there.
One of the suggestions offered by a lot of ppl (and even some on teamliquid) was improve the macro mechanic even more by being able to press a button like alt and then a hotkey for a unit and have all gateways produce that unit. Does this not seem ridiculous? If you appease the casual crowd this much then the game just became your standard above average RTS. Nothing special, and certainly nothing that will attract pro gaming. I swear if they add this feature I'm never gonna play SC2 X_X.
The point is Blizzard needs to find some middle ground because right now everythings just way too easy. I think the stance blizzard chooses needs to cater more to the hardcore gaming side because this is the sequel to SC1...you still need to remain true to its roots.
Also is the server still not working for any1 else???
|
On February 25 2010 21:34 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:30 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:25 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 21:14 Nafaltar wrote:
I find it hilarious how people say that micro is none existent in SC2 while it is the fact that micro is much more important compared to macro in the sequel that is allowing WC3 players to take a number of top spots. In BW micro on 3 zealots won't save you from 18 speedlings either. Its just that BW has been figured out to a very high degree so most of the time armys will be fairly even matched when they do clash, because both players know what works and how to be able to do this. While in most SC2 games at the moment one player lucks out and gets a BO win or one player is just vastly better than another. Yes a few micro elements have gone missing but we did get a couple new ones aswell. wc3 players are taking top spots for the following reasons: 1. not everyone has a beta key and I'm guessing you included because you don't know anything 2. the game is easier and wc3 players are competent enough to be good at it Micro isn't more important than macro or any stupid simplification like that. Macro and macro were reduced and everything got easier. You had to do everything at once in brood war while thinking about strategy at the same time, that's what made it so unique. It's not a click fest you morons learn to play Hi Audiohelper123, It's hard to take your opinion seriously with all those childish insults. That is all  . Hi bendez it's hard to take you seriously when you're stupid and don't know anything. That is all
That didn't totally make his point...seriously how old are you?
|
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.
Bendez glad that you heard about sc2- and came running over to this site to come and enjoy the beta. However-
After reading through this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that you and many other 'new' members to the community are going to be frustrated with TL. the reason is simply this: You are a noobie to starcraft. I have seen so many players here not understand why starcraft is such a great game, and why so many people here on TL are very worried with the current state of the game. New members of our community need to try and understand that most people hear have played SC for years, and in the case of nazgul for decades. Please do not come into the community with assumed opinions about how an RTS should play. For the members of the community that have been playing starcraft for some time, they know far better than most what map control and unit positioning should play like.
I am sorry but right now SC2 is a joke. Mechanically the game is not demanding, and you are completely incorrect to some how think that SC2 can be compared to SC1. SC2 is filled with easy buttons as far as i am concerned. There is no more micro, and macro is a one key press now. Any long term player of SC would not argue with me if I were to say that SC2 is:
- Has limited micro capability
- Is not mechanically demanding
- Does not have the depth that SC enjoyed
- Has poor excuses for APM sinks
- Big battles are simply 1a2a3a, where any types of in battle decisions are negligible. Everything dies to quickly, or is too closely packed together- that your typical late game attacks are basically two blobs just attacking each other.
- That Blizzard has made SC2 more casual (and has even been quoted as saying that they would like their mothers to be able to pick up and play the game)
- We realize that the game will be more profitable if it is easy, so new players like yourself can easily and quickly start winning. However our community has a problem with this train of thought, because we had hoped that SC2 > SC1 however as every day passes that dream is slowly fading away.
In short- SC2 is the super smash brothers brawl of SC1. (whereas SC1 is melee.) As a competitive melee player myself, brawl was a huge disappointment- and i fear that SC2 will be the same.
|
On February 25 2010 23:36 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:45 viletomato wrote:
I see it as simply...
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.
BW falls into the harcore category and last time I checked its probably the most successful RTS ever made. S Of course you can cater to both hardcore and casual. You have to favor one slightly, but theres no reason that the 2 extremes are the only option. For example: Pathfinding improvement :Obviously ok, even for hardcore fans Multiple unit selection: fine, more appeasement for casual people but still viable. Auto surround: Now its ridiculous. Theres no reason casual gamers will stray away from the game because they don't have an AI doing all the micro themselves. Take improved battle AI away and you've appeased both sides. Easier to manage units, but microing skill is still there. One of the suggestions offered by a lot of ppl (and even some on teamliquid) was improve the macro mechanic even more by being able to press a button like alt and then a hotkey for a unit and have all gateways produce that unit. Does this not seem ridiculous? If you appease the casual crowd this much then the game just became your standard above average RTS. Nothing special, and certainly nothing that will attract pro gaming. I swear if they add this feature I'm never gonna play SC2 X_X. The point is Blizzard needs to find some middle ground because right now everythings just way too easy. I think the stance blizzard chooses needs to cater more to the hardcore gaming side because this is the sequel to SC1...you still need to remain true to its roots. Also is the server still not working for any1 else???
I was specificaly talking about the improved AI autosurround... so yes you are right that you can both cater to hardcore and casual in general. What i meant was you can't have no autosurround and auto surround at the same time. You either have improved AI or more control over your units. I appologize if I wasn't clear enough in my post.
|
There is no such thing as auto surround! It is a result the improved AI pathfinding. You cannot have one without the other. Why do you guys make such absurd terms as autosurround when they don't exist.
"Autosurround" works like this
6 Zealots are told to attack a Thor.
Zealots 1-3 engage in melee combat while Zealots 4-6 are behind. Since Zealots 1-3 has taken the front spots of the Thor, they now become obstacles to Zealots 4-6. Zealots 4-6 now make their way around Zealots 1-3 since they are blocking their path to attack the Thor. They will now attack the Thor in the nearest possible vacant spots which are its sides. Zealots 4-6 are now in position to attack the Thor. And thus, resulting into a surround.
|
Blizzard should add two modes to the game. Dumb mode and smart mode. Dumb mode is where the units act like they do in sc1. Workers need to be manually told what to do, no smart casting, none of the new A.I., now macro simplifier etc. Smart mode would be like war3 and the current sc2, where everything is simplified, A.I. is smarter, auto-mining, etc. I think this would satisfy everyone.
|
On February 25 2010 23:46 flabortaster wrote:
There is no such thing as auto surround! It is a result the improved AI pathfinding. You cannot have one without the other. Why do you guys make such absurd terms as autosurround when they don't exist.
"Autosurround" works like this
6 Zealots are told to attack a Thor.
Zealots 1-3 engage in melee combat while Zealots 4-6 are behind. Since Zealots 1-3 has taken the front spots of the Thor, they now become obstacles to Zealots 4-6. Zealots 4-6 now make their way around Zealots 1-3 since they are blocking their path to attack the Thor. They will now attack the Thor in the nearest possible vacant spots which are its sides. Zealots 4-6 are now in position to attack the Thor. And thus, resulting into a surround.
When they surround automatically you're not allowed to call it autosurround because it is the result of some other feature? Please stop arguing dumb ridiculous linguistic facts. People take you serious and have replied to your points please return the favor or don't post at all.
|
And what about the possibility of a promod.
Many other competitive games have done it in the past, quake, cod, etc.
Basicly a mod that tweaks certain values for better balance, changes to things to allow for more skillfull play.
Blizzard could then introduce 20 new mothership type units, make everything easy, but the competitive community still has their "version" of the game for competitive play.
And things get balanced by the community then.
Problems that I see with this:
I don't know if this would actually be possible with the map editor
Not being able to play ranked games with it
And ofcourse the things that have happened in the past with these kind of things, for example the cpma vs OSP type of stuff etc.
|
On February 25 2010 23:46 flabortaster wrote:
There is no such thing as auto surround! It is a result the improved AI pathfinding. You cannot have one without the other. Why do you guys make such absurd terms as autosurround when they don't exist.
"Autosurround" works like this
6 Zealots are told to attack a Thor.
Zealots 1-3 engage in melee combat while Zealots 4-6 are behind. Since Zealots 1-3 has taken the front spots of the Thor, they now become obstacles to Zealots 4-6. Zealots 4-6 now make their way around Zealots 1-3 since they are blocking their path to attack the Thor. They will now attack the Thor in the nearest possible vacant spots which are its sides. Zealots 4-6 are now in position to attack the Thor. And thus, resulting into a surround.
Who cares... as long as one can identify what we are talking about... autosurround or improved AI. Everyone has the idea of surrounding the unit in their heads. It's like saying technically 2+4 not necessarily = 6, Since 2+4 = 1 (mod 5).
|
People in the beta - how do you think just increasing the footprint of units would affect battles?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 25 2010 23:45 viletomato wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 23:36 SubtleArt wrote:On February 25 2010 22:45 viletomato wrote:
I see it as simply...
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.
BW falls into the harcore category and last time I checked its probably the most successful RTS ever made. S Of course you can cater to both hardcore and casual. You have to favor one slightly, but theres no reason that the 2 extremes are the only option. For example: Pathfinding improvement :Obviously ok, even for hardcore fans Multiple unit selection: fine, more appeasement for casual people but still viable. Auto surround: Now its ridiculous. Theres no reason casual gamers will stray away from the game because they don't have an AI doing all the micro themselves. Take improved battle AI away and you've appeased both sides. Easier to manage units, but microing skill is still there. One of the suggestions offered by a lot of ppl (and even some on teamliquid) was improve the macro mechanic even more by being able to press a button like alt and then a hotkey for a unit and have all gateways produce that unit. Does this not seem ridiculous? If you appease the casual crowd this much then the game just became your standard above average RTS. Nothing special, and certainly nothing that will attract pro gaming. I swear if they add this feature I'm never gonna play SC2 X_X. The point is Blizzard needs to find some middle ground because right now everythings just way too easy. I think the stance blizzard chooses needs to cater more to the hardcore gaming side because this is the sequel to SC1...you still need to remain true to its roots. Also is the server still not working for any1 else??? I was specificaly talking about the improved AI autosurround... so yes you are right that you can both cater to hardcore and casual in general. What i meant was you can't have no autosurround and auto surround at the same time. You either have improved AI or more control over your units. I appologize if I wasn't clear enough in my post.
Spoiler cause I don't want my replies to take up so much room lol  .
That makes sense, but again I think this is one of those things that crosses the boundary blizzard needs to establish between the casual crowd and hardcore crowd. It just makes it too easy. Pathfinding is fine cause no1 wants units glitching but this and the instant macro feature would be like auto aim in Halo and auto-steering in a racing game. To draw on the same analogy, fixing pathfinding and unit gltches (DAM YOU DRAGOONS!) would be like allowing ppl in a racing game to have automatic gear shifting, while custom gear shifting would appease the hardcore crowd. Fine right? Yes. But add auto-steer and then it leans way too much on the casual side.
Don't get me wrong tho, a feature to turn things like multiple building select and "auto micro" on and off would be just as stupid...you need to stick to one
|
|
|
On February 25 2010 23:54 viletomato wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 23:46 flabortaster wrote:
There is no such thing as auto surround! It is a result the improved AI pathfinding. You cannot have one without the other. Why do you guys make such absurd terms as autosurround when they don't exist.
"Autosurround" works like this
6 Zealots are told to attack a Thor.
Zealots 1-3 engage in melee combat while Zealots 4-6 are behind. Since Zealots 1-3 has taken the front spots of the Thor, they now become obstacles to Zealots 4-6. Zealots 4-6 now make their way around Zealots 1-3 since they are blocking their path to attack the Thor. They will now attack the Thor in the nearest possible vacant spots which are its sides. Zealots 4-6 are now in position to attack the Thor. And thus, resulting into a surround.
Who cares... as long as one can identify what we are talking about... autosurround or improved AI. Everyone has the idea of surrounding the unit in their heads. It's like saying technically 2+4 not necessarily = 6, Since 2+4 = 1 (mod 5).
Well, it is actually pretty important to point out that there isn't an "auto surround feature" that Blizzard can just disable. If they want to remove it they have to dumb down their AI and break their path finding, and that just won't happen.
Instead of arguing the same thing in futility I suggest people try to come up with ways how to improve the skill celling in both micro and macro without tempering with the UI or AI.
|
On February 25 2010 22:55 bendez wrote:
As for destructible terrain in BW, you're right. It is just that SC2 integrated it better and designed maps around it.
Actually the only real difference is graphics. And the name. Because "destructible rocks" sounds so awesome (well imo it sounds like a joke).
First of all, good maps are NOT designed around something like destructible rocks. Things like destructible rocks are USED to implement a good map concept. In the current SC2 maps the destructible rocks barely have anything to do with map concepts, they were mostly added for the show.
Second: They are only slightly better integrated (excluding the graphical integration). Well, I don't have the beta, but the only improvable things from a gameplay perspective are: attack via right click and minimap color.
|
What do the units do in BW when their path is blocked when they attack a group of unit?
|
On February 26 2010 00:00 flabortaster wrote:
Elitist fucks...
Get out. Get out now. TL does need trash like you.
On February 26 2010 00:05 Squallcloud wrote:
What do the units do in BW when their path is blocked when they attack a group of unit?
Well if you don't micro your zerglings well in a zvz, then the other zerglings will sit behind the others, and wait till a spot opens up. IE you are basically only fighting with half of your army, while the other half waits in line lol. That is why it is very important to always make sure that your zerglings can have the maximum surface area on the enemy. Generally the idea of an arc or concave is used, to maximize your zerglings and DPS output.
|
This isnt going to change, it isnt as simple as the ablities to micro not being there. It's the AI removing the possibility of micro that we are used to.
Honestly the only real way for the type of micro we are used to be brought back, is for the AI of sc2 to be dumbed down a crazy amount. Thats not going to happen, the thought that auto surround should be removed (as the above poster pointed out it is important to note that auto surround is NOT a feature but just smarter AI) cant happen with out massive changes to the structure of the AI to more archaic forms or even intentionally breaking it to causs units to have dumb moments.
Sc2 will have to evolve new ways to micro, it'll have to turn into its own strenghts and grow from that. This really isn't a discussion that will lead anywhere, as there is no real fix outside of destroying there own AI to bring back what some of us want, and blizzard will never do that.
|
If bendez likes destructible stuff so much- go play on plasma or monty hall. have a good time
|
Right now with zerglings it is still more effective to run your group halfway past the enemy before attacking, as this will surround the enemy faster than the AI will.
Zealots will probably be on a-move with or without autosurround, because of the way their charge works.
The only other issue with autosurround that I can think of off the top of my head is workers become much better fighters, so I guess early rushers will have to be more careful.
|
Smart AI makes manual surrounds, flanking and pre battle positioning obsolete. How can anyone even call that a feature or improvement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
