|
On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process  there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games.
Couldn't have said it better myself. SC2 doesn't need to be as hard as SC1...but even with the new mechanics it needs to be a hell of a lot harder.
|
only thing i hate about the larva change is that now i have to go back to my base every once in a while, while in BW i never had to :p
other than that, sounds like a good change. zerg macro was definately waaaaaay too easy without this change.
|
On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant.
It does change how easy the process Should be though.
If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game.
Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game.
It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there)
Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast
ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI*
Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more)
Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production)
|
On April 23 2010 08:52 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. To some degree I have to question what health you mean? The one where 18 year old Korean boys spend 14 hours a day, seven days a week to keep themselves at a competitive level?
Dont insult progamers. Not here.
But yah the whole arguement is ridiculous cause half the people are saying "we want physically demanding mechanics" and the other half are saying "we want decision making".
And the cold hard truth is you can have both.
|
"Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel." ->> this will make the game even more boring than it is now.
Blizzard wants the player to focus even more on his base/macro rather than on harassing, taking map control, microing in fights, etc. ...
Macroing as it is now was a big reason for zergs to play so passive (camping with the army in base 95% of the game, and then make a final a-move push or move their army to the next expand). Not forgetting larvae injection is really important, since it doesn't work like chronoboost or mules to just spam it 3-4 times in case you forgot it.
I always tried to take map control, harass, scout, or w/e, but now I'm forced to return in my base/expands every 20-30 seconds ...
Btw, notice that all those who agreed with this change have a terran avatar near their tl name = biased opinion by zerg haters.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
@ Nony, the I suppose it's just a difference in ideology and opinion on what kind of a game SC and RTSs should be.
I'm not against having APM be a requirement, I am against purposefully making it one. To say I don't like RTSs however was an absurd an pointless comment.
|
Is the Zerg decal in your picture a swastica? :o
|
On April 23 2010 08:50 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:38 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Wasn't BW realistically dead outside of Korea other then the spurt since SC2 was announced? The fact BW didn't stay popular(to the masses) shows that a scene might not survive the initial boom period of launch and last long if all but the most committed players can train there hands with dull tasks. I understand making a game hard to cause skill gaps between players to seperate the different calibre of players but a phyiscal gap instead of a mental gap is meant for physical sports not a strategy game whose name explains its raison d'être. BW definitely wasn't dead prior to SC2. If anything, SC2 made the BW scene worse. And now that SC2 beta is out, the BW scene is pretty much dead. I don't understand what making it popular to the masses means or why Korea shouldn't be counted. Most of the fans of BW in Korea are not good players. They appreciate the skill it takes to play and do not expect to be able to play the game as well as professionals. As far as I know, most veteran SC:BW fans love the analogy to physical sport. The game is supposed to have a physical component to it. I don't know why it shouldn't -- because it's on a computer? But clearly the traditional view of computer games is that they require speed and accuracy with the tools of the computer, the mouse and keyboard. Because it's a strategy game? Well changing the game based on what genre you place it in is confusing the cause and effect of creating games and placing them in genres. Games are created first and then people attempt to label them and put them in genres. It is a completely misguided argument to say what the game ought to be like because "it's a strategy game." One ought to take an un-biased approach when looking at the components of the game and see if they're good or not. People have done that with SC:BW and have figured that the physical component is good and want that aspect to be consistent for future StarCraft titles. Even if you want to use the genre, the genre is RTS. The game happens in real time. Strategy is supposed to be imperfect in a real time game. As many have said before me, the "third resource" in StarCraft is time. You must consider that you have a limited amount of time to carry out your strategy and if you cannot do it perfectly, then you should account for that as part of your strategy. RTS games that are essentially turn-based games because they're so slow are kinda ridiculous...
QFT.
If you still can't get it, sucks to be you.
There are plenty of turn based games out there.
Yea, it seems like a very elitist way to distinguish player skill.
Training more hours and becoming better mechanically doesn't require a lot of thinking.
But it ensures that a player who wants to be at the very top is dedicated to the game.
It's not always about clicking faster, it has a lot to do with being able to split your attention in REAL TIME.
|
On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production)
You keep talking about the blandness of Spawn Larva, in argument to a completely different concept.
|
On April 23 2010 08:56 cyclone25 wrote:
"Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel." ->> this will make the game even more boring than it is now.
Blizzard wants the player to focus even more on his base/macro rather than on harassing, taking map control, microing in fights, etc. ...
Macroing as it is now was a big reason for zergs to play so passive (camping with the army in base 95% of the game, and then make a final a-move push or move their army to the next expand). Not forgetting larvae injection is really important, since it doesn't work like chronoboost or mules to just spam it 3-4 times in case you forgot it.
I always tried to take map control, harass, scout, or w/e, but now I'm forced to return in my base/expands every 20-30 seconds ...
Btw, notice that all those who agreed with this change have a terran avatar near their tl name = biased opinion by zerg haters.
I am a zerg player and I already go back to my base and do all that. I agree with the change completely just like the warpgates no longer being able to press W to select all. I think it was dumb allowing that in the first place.
|
On April 23 2010 08:50 Bennaya13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:03 HeyZeus wrote:
I don't understand why high-level players (especially those with SC1 backgrounds) continue to defend UI elements that are repetitive and/or arbitrary for the sake rewarding higher APM.
Would the game be better if:
- Unit selection max is 1 unit? That would require some sick APM just to not attack in a straight line!
- Workers don't return minerals automatically after mining?
- No unit production queues?
- Every hotkey changes throughout the course of the game, at pre-defined time intervals? The truly pro would memorize every hot key at minute 1, minute 2, minute 3, etc.
- You were forced to play Bop-It during SC2, and every time you mess up you lose resources?
More repetitive, arbitrary APM-demanding mechanics just dilutes the "strategy" part of "RTS". Thank you! I mean honestly why would anyone want to tediously make extra clicks like that? How is that fun IN ANY WAY? You would think pros might want anything they can get to avoid repetitive stress injuries.
yeah cause pros want the game to be easier so every casual person could play near their level, thus making them less special, and therefore decreasing their paychecks. right.
|
On April 23 2010 08:56 DaggerRage wrote:
Is the Zerg decal in your picture a swastica? :o If you mean swastika, then NO. It just resembles one.
|
Could somebody plz ask if this ui/macro change was intentional on the official forum? I didn't see a thread yet...
|
On April 23 2010 08:56 cyclone25 wrote:
"Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel." ->> this will make the game even more boring than it is now.
Blizzard wants the player to focus even more on his base/macro rather than on harassing, taking map control, microing in fights, etc. ...
Macroing as it is now was a big reason for zergs to play so passive (camping with the army in base 95% of the game, and then make a final a-move push or move their army to the next expand). Not forgetting larvae injection is really important, since it doesn't work like chronoboost or mules to just spam it 3-4 times in case you forgot it.
I always tried to take map control, harass, scout, or w/e, but now I'm forced to return in my base/expands every 20-30 seconds ...
Btw, notice that all those who agreed with this change have a terran avatar near their tl name = biased opinion by zerg haters.
I agree with this change and I only play zerg in BW and SC2 and also have a terran avatar near my name. I didn't even know u could use the wireframes and I thought the game was too easy before.
|
On April 23 2010 08:52 WiljushkA wrote:
only thing i hate about the larva change is that now i have to go back to my base every once in a while No, you don't. You can simply bind all your queens to a single group, hit R (V), and click on any hatch on the minimap, and the closest queen will go there to inject larva. If you click anywhere else, it won't work, so you can just do it really fast and not care about whiffing.
I kinda hate that Z is the only race that "wastes" macro energy if its timing is not insanely good, but this is a completely unrelated issue.
|
Ok this change is huge.
Colossi CANNOT walk past/over FORCE FIELDS.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:On April 23 2010 08:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:07 avilo wrote:On April 23 2010 07:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 07:53 avilo wrote:wow, turning out to be an excellent, excellent patch by blizzard. Congrats on them realizing that there is such a thing as "interface balance," (being too easy, or too hard)and using it in their design process there is no reason to wonder why these guys are top tier RTS developers. WTF is interface balance? There is nothing "too easy" or "too hard." That's like saying Protoss in BW is "easy," cause you just "1a2a3a." Interface balance is a concept of how easy it is to play a game mechanically. You have RTS games such as dune, cnc1, war2 that are on one spectrum of the interface balance, aka way too hard and hindering input of what you can do in the game. Then you have Starcraft, which is perfectly in between everything (theoretically) as you have a very nice interface, not too easy, but also not so hard. This is why Starcraft has the highest skill differential among top players period. Then you have newer modern games that are very "easy," such as warcraft 3, redalert 3, cnc3, where macro and game input is very easy, almost too easy, such that the skill differential between top players is very little (that goes for cnc games, not war3). So basically, you have the original RTS games that are one end, the newer RTS on the other end of interface balance, and Starcraft right smack dab in the middle. Dune ++++++++++++++ STarcraftBroodWar +++++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS and then you have SC2, which Blizzard has designed well enough that I would say from playing/watching has a high skill differential, while also having an easier interface than brood war, but not so easy it takes the skill differential of the game away like many other 1 year life cycle RTS games. so you have: Dune/cnc1 +++++++++++ SC BW ++++++++ SC2 +++++++++ cnc/war3/modern RTS that is interface balance... That is an absurd concept. As far as I'm concerned, when X years from now and we can link minds with our computers, that is when RTS games can be perfected. How fast.well you can physically input something should have absolutely no bearing on a strategy game. So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player? I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site. Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. No its not. Its intrinsically tied with how the player percieves the game. Dont believe me? Run a poll asking which people perfered more: Proton Charge or Chronoboost.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you responding to just my last sentence? The context before it matters. How you came to think that you want to an action is irrelevant to how easy the process of doing the action is. The process of doing an action is prompted by a decision. It begins after a decision has been made. Whatever difficulty, or lack of difficulty, was in the process of making the decision is not relevant. First you make the decision. Then you do something as a result of making the decision. When you do things on purpose, you must first decide things. What am I going to do? Once you have decided what you are going to do, you have to do it. The discussion here is about how difficult it is to do it. Should we make it difficult on purpose? Should we make it as easy as possible? Should we not pay attention to it at all? Is it okay to make it easy and then make it more difficult? These issues are relevant to the discussion. Anything having to do with making the decision is outside of the discussion.
|
On April 23 2010 08:57 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:56 cyclone25 wrote:
"Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel." ->> this will make the game even more boring than it is now.
Blizzard wants the player to focus even more on his base/macro rather than on harassing, taking map control, microing in fights, etc. ...
Macroing as it is now was a big reason for zergs to play so passive (camping with the army in base 95% of the game, and then make a final a-move push or move their army to the next expand). Not forgetting larvae injection is really important, since it doesn't work like chronoboost or mules to just spam it 3-4 times in case you forgot it.
I always tried to take map control, harass, scout, or w/e, but now I'm forced to return in my base/expands every 20-30 seconds ...
Btw, notice that all those who agreed with this change have a terran avatar near their tl name = biased opinion by zerg haters. I am a zerg player and I already go back to my base and do all that. I agree with the change completely just like the warpgates no longer being able to press W to select all. I think it was dumb allowing that in the first place.
I heard the copper players don't know they can group hatcheries or units. Let's remove control grouping ... you're clever.
|
On April 23 2010 08:58 WiljushkA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:50 Bennaya13 wrote:On April 23 2010 08:03 HeyZeus wrote:
I don't understand why high-level players (especially those with SC1 backgrounds) continue to defend UI elements that are repetitive and/or arbitrary for the sake rewarding higher APM.
Would the game be better if:
- Unit selection max is 1 unit? That would require some sick APM just to not attack in a straight line!
- Workers don't return minerals automatically after mining?
- No unit production queues?
- Every hotkey changes throughout the course of the game, at pre-defined time intervals? The truly pro would memorize every hot key at minute 1, minute 2, minute 3, etc.
- You were forced to play Bop-It during SC2, and every time you mess up you lose resources?
More repetitive, arbitrary APM-demanding mechanics just dilutes the "strategy" part of "RTS". Thank you! I mean honestly why would anyone want to tediously make extra clicks like that? How is that fun IN ANY WAY? You would think pros might want anything they can get to avoid repetitive stress injuries. yeah cause pros want the game to be easier so every casual person could play near their level, thus making them less special, and therefore decreasing their paychecks. right.
theres alot of casual players that got into platinum just because they do all in builds every game. so i hardly think all of the high platinum players are special when other guys from gold or even silver can completely annihilate someone from platinum just because most platinum players got in there purely from cheesing/all inning and winning most of there games cuz of it. and the sad part is alot of ppl refer to them as "good" players.
theres only a select few really really good plat players and most if not all of them come from TL.
|
On April 23 2010 09:02 cyclone25 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:57 blade55555 wrote:On April 23 2010 08:56 cyclone25 wrote:
"Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel." ->> this will make the game even more boring than it is now.
Blizzard wants the player to focus even more on his base/macro rather than on harassing, taking map control, microing in fights, etc. ...
Macroing as it is now was a big reason for zergs to play so passive (camping with the army in base 95% of the game, and then make a final a-move push or move their army to the next expand). Not forgetting larvae injection is really important, since it doesn't work like chronoboost or mules to just spam it 3-4 times in case you forgot it.
I always tried to take map control, harass, scout, or w/e, but now I'm forced to return in my base/expands every 20-30 seconds ...
Btw, notice that all those who agreed with this change have a terran avatar near their tl name = biased opinion by zerg haters. I am a zerg player and I already go back to my base and do all that. I agree with the change completely just like the warpgates no longer being able to press W to select all. I think it was dumb allowing that in the first place. I heard the copper players don't know they can group hatcheries or units. Let's remove control grouping ... you're clever.
You're pissed beacuse your race now has to return to their base to use its macro mechanic like the terran has had to do all along. Just calm dude, your race still has the strongest macro mechanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
