|
On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
But that is not what the original debate was about, It was about how and why it was more difficult to execute the macro mechanics after the recent patch and why that kind of "pointless" interaction needs to taken out of the game so we can focus on strategy.
Basicly he(and a few others in the thread) wants the game to be as automated and UI friendly as possible to promote strategic play. But by doing this you get the following:
Lack of styles: there will be no "macro-players (flash)" "or micro-players (boxer)" like in SC1 beacuse mechanical play is pretty much non existant as its so easy to do anything that involves macromanagement. There are no hurdles to get over like in SC1, all you really focus on is strategy.
Lower skill ceiling: You can only get so good when you have the game doing shit for you or being as easy as possible. Alot of people will get equally good and strategy as only differential is simply not good enough for a e-sport game.
Fun factor is irrelevant in this discussion, this game is supposed to become an e-sport and that is the basis we should argue from in this thread.
|
On April 23 2010 09:29 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +
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)
so you suggest that there be a difficulty to the action of having my marine fire on the only enemy unit in range?
The current difficulty of that action is exactly 0, all military units are on autoattack and can't even be switched off.
the reason for that is that the decision making in that case is almost 0 as well
current spawn larva should not be any more difficult than autoattack
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.
I agree, the macro actions should Not be easy, they should involve significant decisions.
or be cut
The way I would prioritize the alternatives
1. New Zerg macromechanic that involves decision making
2. No Zerg Macromechanic
3. Current Spawn Larva mechanic with ruined UI (which affects transfusion as well)
I'm making the argument that #2 is better than #3 (and #1 would be a Lot better)
Basically the UI should be physically demanding, but those physical demands should come as a result of trying to implement decisions in a timely manner.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I knew this would come up eventually. I really don't give a fuck about archerofaiur's topic. He has brought it up before, I talked about it then, and that was that. He brings it up again when it's irrelevant so I simply say it's irrelevant so maybe he'll fuck off and let the discussion I'm involved in proceed naturally without him fucking it up to feed his personal crusade. Of course he doesn't think he's being irrelevant at all and just keeps up with his routine (that poll and its question is part of his act). You are correct that it's a never-ending subject, partially because archerofaiur brings it up at every opportunity he gets. Fuck it!
|
it involves a decision on how to spend your queens' energy for one. it's not a big deal right now but that doesn't mean it won't be. personally i think putting razor swarm back in (or whatever it was called) would make it even more of a consideration, akin to forgoing mules in favor of scans. it also punishes you for not paying attention to your macro, because you really really need the extra units. and there will be times when, because of bad planning or a mistake, those extra larva are useless because you don't have the capacity to support that many anymore. also creates a vulnerability in the macro. queens are much easier to kill than hatcheries overall. if you lose your queen, you lose a hatchery and a half of production capacity.
it's not as obviously strategic as chrono boost of course, but calling it dumb repetitive motion with no point to it seems kind of a kneejerk reaction to me.
|
Umm i was mining 6 gas per trip...
|
On April 23 2010 09:29 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:22 Krikkitone wrote: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.
Yes, but there already was the appropriate physically demanding difficulty in the precise repetitive timing required so not to negatively effect macro potential by wasting energy over 25 and clicking the correct building icons too boost.
This is a difficulty that excludes players and that the SF style difficulty has shown cripples a games longevity regardless of the arguable korean exception to this rule.
|
lol guess its a good thing i never knew spawn larva worked on wireframes in the first place :/
|
On April 23 2010 09:43 Senx wrote:
But that is not what the original debate was about, It was about how and why it was more difficult to execute the macro mechanics after the recent patch and why that kind of "pointless" interaction needs to taken out of the game so we can focus on strategy.
I think everyone agrees that the queen mechanic lacks that decision aspect that T/P has.
Perhaps instead they ought to add a new interesting ability to Queens in order to force a decision instead of nerfing the interface? And we are operating on the assumption that this was all changed due to Spawn Larvae; this may not be the case. Perhaps there was some sort of exploit that we just aren't aware of?
Either way, I think we all should consider the quote in your sig. It's just one patch.
|
Also seem to have added a "Confirm Exit" button. You have no idea how many times I have accidentally F10 E E after I gg... All of a sudden SC2 is gone.
I just want them to bring back alt-q-q. What was wrong with that?
|
Wow, seriously?
Aren't most people here BW players? Are we really seeing a lot of QQ about macro being hard?
|
On April 23 2010 09:34 MidKnight wrote:
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?
No. I do not think workers should automatically mine at the start.
Like the great Thom Yorke once said "Pragmism not idealism". If youll look back at my posts youll see that some UI limitation are nessisary and in some cases good. But Spawn Larva's one dimensionalness is neither nessisary nor good. That much is certain.
|
On April 23 2010 09:50 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
Wow, seriously?
Aren't most people here BW players? Are we really seeing a lot of QQ about macro being hard?
no kidding, auto mine alone makes macroing a joke
|
On April 23 2010 09:48 Kralic wrote:
Umm i was mining 6 gas per trip...
This makes for a significant balance change. Any confirmation?
|
I don't know if it's an issue of 'macro is hard' compared to -- 'why would Blizzard remove functionality to make macro more difficult'. It seems like kind of a backwards sloppy solution.
|
everyone talking about spawn larva being a dead action, but what about mules? its about the same. sure people use comsat and supply sometimes, but people use creep tumor and transfusion sometimes also. Mostly its just mules and spawn larva, they are about the same. chrono boost is probably pretty similar too.
|
On April 23 2010 09:49 Pigsquirrel wrote:
Also seem to have added a "Confirm Exit" button. You have no idea how many times I have accidentally F10 E E after I gg... All of a sudden SC2 is gone.
I just want them to bring back alt-q-q. What was wrong with that?
thank god... lots of itmes i F10 E E too quickly and have to relaunch =S
|
Another unlisted change is that zerg buildings finally bleed when damaged!!
|
On April 23 2010 09:55 Airsick wrote:
Another unlisted change is that zerg buildings finally bleed when damaged!!
+16 rate in Korea soon!
|
On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote: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:
[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. 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.
No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits?
Edit i'm harsh to say garbage. I only think we will lose out on new great protosses mainly, its for them i fear.
|
On April 23 2010 09:52 Krikkitone wrote:This makes for a significant balance change. Any confirmation?
Regular vespene geysers are 4, there are high yield geysers in the map editor that give 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
