|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions.
Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say.
|
On April 23 2010 09:18 aceofbase wrote:
as a plat zerg player i have no qualms with them disabling wire frame larva inject(never knew it existed until now) as i would have a hot key and way point for all my hives and hot keys up to 3 queens. i gotta reach for v now instead of r is kind of annoying. r was right under the hot keys i would use for my queens and i could inject quickly and efficiently by double tapping and hitting r.
Of course you have no qualms with something you didn't know existed, way to remain unbiased.
I was aware of the option (I play Zerg), never used it, but I still feel like it should be included. Double tapping 4 for my queen then injecting and double tapping my army hotkey didn't take any time, but if someone had an alternate gameplay preference, it shouldn't be stopped. Whatever.
|
On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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.
How Difficult it Should be is directly related to how much of a Decision it is.
The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here
So the issue is balance... ie limited unit selection would be OK as long as the groups were forced to be comaprable (ie you can control 12 food worth of units in a selection group)
ie my actions all have to have a similar potential impact on me winning the game.
In that case I can see the effeect of the change being useful to balance Chronoboost and MULE
Spawn Larva, on the other hand, cannot be cast from all your Queens all at one single base simultaneously
|
Hey guys have you figured out the unit rank system? Is it just tied to achievements or do higher ranked units get stat bonuses in game (which frankly I would love; it would be a nice way to reward good micro)?
|
On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
No. Decision making is absolutly relative to the quality of the macro mechanics. Here
Poll: Which mechanic is better?Chronoboost (28) 82% Proton Charge (6) 18% 34 total votes Your vote: Which mechanic is better? (Vote): Chronoboost
(Vote): Proton Charge
And the discussion topic at the root of all this is why this change was put in place. Other macro mechanics have shown that the better alternative to limiting the UI is to give the player meaningful action.
|
On April 23 2010 09:19 Sephy69 wrote:
it always felt awkward to hotkey all my hatcheries and queens then inject larva right then in there in the frame, i just go back to my hatchery and manually do it, and since the icons are so tiny i found myself having trouble clicking on them since my mouse accuracy isn't so great yet. same thing with chrono boost, i just go back and manually do it, it's crazy how many of you bitched because they removed this mechanic, just deal with it
So just because you you're not accurate enough to click on the hatchery icons, it means this option was useless enough for Blizzard to remove it? That's why there are platinum players and copper players.
I hate zergs who say ... well I never used it so it's ok for blizzard to remove it. How is this not a biased dumb post? ... Just because you're not good enough to take advantage of a tool like that, it doesn't mean it can be removed!
|
For those of you having a QQ about the spawn lava change... You can still cast it on the minimap and with the shift key it is barely harder to do at all and still does not require looking at your base.
|
On April 23 2010 09:23 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No. Decision making is absolutly relative to the quality of the macro mechanics. Here Poll: Which mechanic is better?Chronoboost (28) 82% Proton Charge (6) 18% 34 total votes Your vote: Which mechanic is better? (Vote): Chronoboost
(Vote): Proton Charge
And the discussion topic at the root of all this is why this change was put in place. Other macro mechanics have shown that the better alternative to limiting the UI is to give the player meaningful action.
You do realise this poll proves absolutely nothing right?
|
On April 23 2010 09:26 DeCoup wrote:
For those of you having a QQ about the spawn lava change... You can still cast it on the minimap and with the shift key it is barely harder to do at all and still does not require looking at your base.
This. Have all your queens on 1 hotkey and you're set.
|
On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote: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:
[quote]
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) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully.
I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:22 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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. How Difficult it Should be is directly related to how much of a Decision it is.
No... there should be a certain level of difficulty of doing actions across the board, just to keep the game physically demanding (for competitive and strategical reasons)
Then there should be a balancing of difficulty of actions based on what kind of actions they are. This helps to create style and diversifies strategies. The simplest demonstration of how this goes wrong: If all the macro actions are really easy, then everyone will do them nearly perfectly, so you'll never have a macro player who specializes in doing macro actions well. So you want a bit of difficulty in as wide a range of actions as possible so that people can specialize according to their style.
That's it.
|
-Gas Geysers look different
-might be just me but: when you mine, the number increase one at a time, not by a set amount (like, you'll see it go up to 5+ more then what you had one by one rather then just adding 5 to your mineral count)
-For Zerg, when you press S, it'll target the eggs when there is no larvae?...
I used some means to play around a bit :|
|
Is there any way to change the Spawn Larva hotkey back to R? That's what is really bothering me.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote: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:
[quote]
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) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels.
Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week.
If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player.
|
On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions.
Yes, we get his point.
He wants more tension between Queen's abilities similarly to the tension between Orbital Command or Chrono boost.
That would be awesome, I agree 100%.
But he acts as if any mechanic which doesn't require immediate choice is redundant and shouldn't even be there.
The way he thinks I'm sure he wouldn't mind that at the very start of the game workers would automatically be sent to the mineral patches and a new worker would be automatically built with the first 50 minerals.
I mean, those actions don't require any strategical thinking either, why bother with them?
Building pylons/supply depots/overlords doesn't require any strategy either.
Thus it should be automated or just removed, it doesn't add any strategical depth.
I mean..
There are very few truly competitive RTS games for a reason.
Most of them are almost turn based, as they are so damn slow.
Strategic thinking is rewarded most in those.
That's cool.
However, Starcraft is an RTS which combines strategic thinking and the mechanical ability into 1.
DEAL WITH IT
|
Would someone in the know please tell us what sound effects have been changed/updated?
Thanks.
|
On April 23 2010 09:28 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:26 DeCoup wrote:
For those of you having a QQ about the spawn lava change... You can still cast it on the minimap and with the shift key it is barely harder to do at all and still does not require looking at your base. This. Have all your queens on 1 hotkey and you're set.
also useful if u early expanded and want to fend of a banshee harass
|
United States7166 Posts
chrono boost is one ive noticed. i dont remember any others, there were a couple. you'llj ust experience it ingame. most are the same, no voice changes afaik. overlord creep sound still makes you want to blow your brains out
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:23 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No. Decision making is absolutly relative to the quality of the macro mechanics. Here Poll: Which mechanic is better?Chronoboost (28) 82% Proton Charge (6) 18% 34 total votes Your vote: Which mechanic is better? (Vote): Chronoboost
(Vote): Proton Charge
And the discussion topic at the root of all this is why this change was put in place. Other macro mechanics have shown that the better alternative to limiting the UI is to give the player meaningful action.
Your use of the word "quality" is the first in this entire discussion. Nobody has been generally assessing the quality of the macro mechanics. Only under a general assessment would your issue come up. The discussion before you was about a different aspect of the macro mechanic, but wasn't even really talking about macro mechanics. It was using an example of how the UI was changed to be more difficult -- that example just happened to be a macro mechanic. The discussion was about how difficult performing actions ought to be.
|
On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions. Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say.
But he is correct in my opinion. I disagree with you that actions and decisions are two different matters. Decisions should induce actions, and because of how well I believe I can perform those actions I adjust my decisions. "I think I can defend this rush without chronoboosting my gateway, and instead use the boost on my nexus. If I do it right, I will be ahead, if not I will be behind or dead." My decisions come with a prize if I'm right and a cost if I'm wrong, and that is decided by my skill.
Spawn larva offers no such considerations at no point. But I guess this is a neverending subject here, and I haven't read all the earlier discussions on it so I believe that all things already have been said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
